TATUM DUKE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
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.
Tatum Duke was convicted of manslaughter in the negligent and intoxicated operation of an automobile resulting in the death of Hiram Wilkinson. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court admitted irrelevant and immaterial evidence regarding Duke's father's conduct and the presence of alcohol on both Duke and his father's breath.
The trial court erred in admitting evidence of Duke's father's attempt to procure a witness not to testify before the Grand Jury and evidence of alcohol on the breath of both Duke and his father, as such evidence was irrelevant and immaterial unless a connection between Duke and his father's conduct was shown beyond mere kinship. The error was reversible because the whole evidence did not clearly establish Duke's guilt to such an extent as to render the error harmless.
“The admission of such evidence was error, because it was irrelevant and immaterial to the issue being tried. Since we cannot say that the whole evidence clearly establishes the guilt of the defendant of the crime charged to such an extent as to render such error harmless, we must hold that it is such error as to require a new trial.”
Establishes the harmless error standard and applies it to reverse the conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn July 12, 1931, Hiram Wilkinson died from a head wound. His body was found on the Glendale Road in Walton County on July 13. Duke had borrowed a Bui…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Guilt Beyond A Reasonable Doubt cases and more on FLexlaw
Tatum Duke was coAvicted of the crime of manslaughter in the Circuit Court of Walton County and sentenced to five years imprisonment. The indict*206ment was in two counts. The first charged manslaughter by the negligent operation of an automobile. The second charged manslaughter by the operation of an automobile by the defendant while he was intoxicated. The verdict was a general verdict of guilty on both counts as charged.'
On the morning of July 13, 1931, one Hiram Wilkinson was found in a dying condition on the Glendale Road in Walton County. He had a wound on his head and a slight bruise on one leg and one arm. There were no eye witnesses called to testify as to the connection of the defendant with the injuries which occasioned death.
The State’s case was sought to be made out by circumstantial evidence to the effect that on the day before the body of Wilkinson was found, the defendant had borrowed a Buick automobile in DeFuniak Springs for the purpose of going to his mother’s home on the Glendale Road where the body was found; that later this car was found with a large dent in the front part of the right fender, the right headlight out of line and the right cowl light missing. The car was also minus a door handle which was found inside the car, while in the cracked portion of the cowl was found certain hair, which though of a different shade and color from that of the deceased, was claimed by the State to have been his.
The deceased was obviously killed on Sunday night, July 12th. His body was found about daylight Monday morning, July 13th. The Buick car, which had been borrowed from its owner, was returned to him Wednesday morning by parking it on the street in the City of De Funiak Springs. From the time the car was borrowed until it Was returned, it was seen with at least three people in it, other than the defendant, one of them being the defendant’s sister.
Over the objection of the defendant, testimony was *207admitted that plaintiff in errok and his father were seen together Monday afternoon and that witnesses smelled liquor on the breath of each of them. Testimony was also admitted over the defendant’s objection that defendant’s father, who was not a joint defendant, nor shown to have been acting under agreement or conspiracy with his son, the defendant, tried to keep a witness from testifying before the Grand Jury.
The admission of such evidence was error, because it was irrelevant and immaterial to the issue being tried. Since we cannot say that the whole evidence clearly establishes the guilt of the defendant of the crime charged to such an extent as to render such error harmless, we must hold that it is such error as to require a new trial. See Elliott v. State, 77 Fla. 611, 82 Sou. Rep. 139, where similar evidence was held irrelevant and immaterial but not reversible error under the circumstances of that case when guilt was otherwise conclusively shown. See also Patterson vs. State, 23 Ala. App. 428, 126 Sou. Rep. 420; Goodman v. State, 20 Ala. App. 392, 102 Sou. Rep. 486.
In the trial of a criminal case, testimony that the father of the defendant on trial attempted to procure a witness not to testify before the Grand Jury investigating the crime charged, is irrelevant and immaterial, and should be excluded, unless some connection by defendant with such conduct of the father is shown, other than defendant’s bare kinship to his father.
And the admission of such evidence will be held to have been reversible error, where this Court cannot say on the whole record that the proof of the guilt of the accused is so clear and satisfactory that the jury could have done nothing but convict the defendant, even if such evidence had been excluded.
Other errors of procedure assigned have been considered but are not sustained as grounds for reversal.
*208For the error pointed out the judgment must be reversed and a new trial awarded.
Reversed for a new trial.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Special v. W. Boca Med. Ctr., 160 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. 2014)…g party. See Koon v. State, 513 So. 2d 1253, 1256 (Fla.1987) (“It has been held that evidence of threats made against witnesses is inadmissible to prove guilt unless the threats are shown to be attributable to the defendant.”) (citing Duke v. State, 106 Fla. 205, 142 So. 886 (1932); Jones v. State, 385 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Coleman v. State, 335 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)); see also State v. Price, 491 So. 2d 536, 536-37 (Fla.1986) (“A third person’s attempt to influence a witness is inadmiss…1 / 2
-
Koon v. State, 513 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1987)…this testimony was that it was outside the scope of direct examination. It has been held that evidence of threats made against witnesses is inadmissible to prove guilt unless the threats are shown to be attributable to the defendant. Duke v. State, 106 Fla. 205, 142 So. 886 (1932); Jones v. State, 385 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Coleman v. State, 335 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). There is no indication in those cases that the evidence of the threats was introduced except as part of the state’s case…
-
Graives v. State, 127 Fla. 182 (Fla. 1936)…ound on the dead woman who had been in the automobile with defendant was offered in evidence. That, too, was a part of the res gestae and no reversible error was committed by its introduction before the jury. Counsel cites the case of Duke v. State, 106 Fla. 205, 142 Sou. 886, in support of his contentions. There is nothing in that case which has any bearing on the question here involved. The Alabama case of Patterson v. State, 23 Ala. App. 428, 126 Sou. 420, is not at all in point either. The sixth quest…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Elliott v. State, 77 Fla. 611 (Fla. 1919)