E. J. D. SUTTON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for shooting into an occupied house, holding that evidence of circumstances surrounding the offense, even if potentially criminal, is admissible if relevant to the issues being tried. The court also found that evidence immaterial to the accused's guilt or innocence was properly excluded.
The trial court did not err in admitting testimony that persons were struck by shots fired into the house, as it was relevant to the circumstances of the offense. The court also did not err in excluding testimony and evidence that were immaterial to the accused's guilt or innocence, and in admitting testimony about a prior difficulty to show motive.
“proof of any fact with its circumstances, even though amounting to a distinct crime, if it has some relevant bearing upon the issue being tried, is admissible against an objection that it is immaterial.”
Establishes the principle for admitting relevant evidence, even if it suggests other criminal activity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was convicted of wantonly and maliciously shooting into an occupied house. During the trial, the court allowed testimony that i…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Whitfield, C. J.
This writ of error was taken to a conviction for the statutory offense of wantonly and maliciously shooting at or into an occupied house.
The trial court did not err in permitting a witness to testify that persons, were struck by shots fired into the house at the time of the offense charged, since proof of any fact with its circumstances, even though amounting to a distinct crime, if it has some relevant bearing upon the issue being tried, is admissible against an objection that it is immaterial. Wallace v. State 41 Fla. 547, 26 South. Rep. 713.
There was no error in excluding the testimony of a witness who was with the accused as his wife at the time the alleged offense was committed, that she was struck by shots fired from the house into which the accused shot, as such testimony had no material bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused under the charge and the testimony of the witnesses. The same rule is applicable to the exclusion of evidence that the persons in the house into which the accused shot were drinking whiskey. Such evidence was immaterial to the issue being tried.
No error was committed in refusing to strike testimony of a witness who was in the house shot into, stating the circumstances but not the merits of a difficulty he had with the accused shortly prior to the time the house was shot into by the accused. The circumstances of the previous difficulty tended to show the motive of the accused in committing the act charged against him.
The judgment is affirmed.
Taylor, Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. State, 67 Fla. 127 (Fla. 1914)…* 9 9 any dwelling or any other house which is being used or occupied 9 9 shall be punished by imprisonment in the State prison not more than ten years, or by fine not more than five thousand dollars.” Sec. 3628 Gen. Stats. of 1906; Sutton v. State, 64 Fla. 150, 59 South. Rep. 893. Fairly considered the information in its meaning and legal effect plainly and sufficiently charges that defendant did Avantonly. and maliciously shoot at and into a dwelling house of a named person, which dwelling house was the…
Authorities Cited
- Wallace v. State, 26 So. 713 (Fla. 1899)