ALEXANDER BELL, 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.
Alexander Bell was convicted under Florida law for deserting his wife and child without legal grounds and withholding means of support from them. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting various claims of evidentiary and instructional error.
The court affirmed the conviction, finding that the challenged testimony was admissible, the jury instructions properly covered the applicable law, and any technical errors were harmless in light of the ample evidence supporting the verdict.
“It is clear the testimony is not hearsay, and that it is relevant to the issue of withholding the means of support. It was properly admitted.”
Court's holding on admissibility of wife's testimony about partner refusing support
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBell was charged in two counts: desertion of his wife and child without a recognized ground for divorce, and withholding means of support in violation…
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 Prejudicial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
Bell was informed against in two counts, one count charging desertion of his wife' and child without there existing at the time of such desertion a cause recognized as a ground for divorce in this State, and the other count charging that he withheld from his wife and child the means of support, in violation of Section 3569 of the General Statutes of 1906.
The defendant was found “guilty as charged” and took writ of error to the judgment and sentence.
At the trial the defendant’s wife in testifying that the husband withheld from her the means of support, stated that the defendant’s partner refused to let her have anything from their store. The court refused to strike this testimony, and on exception and assignment of error, it is urged that the testimony is hearsay, irrevelant and prejudicial. It is clear the testimony is not hearsay, and that it is relevant to the issue of withholding the means of support. It was properly admitted.
The court properly excluded a copy of the record in an alimony suit and testimony as to the result of a suit for alimony previously brought by Bell’s wife against him, since the merits of the suit between the parties was not material to the issue in the criminal prosecution of Bell.
On cross-examination the defendant testified without objection that he knew a certain woman of bad repute and where she lived. He was then asked: “Have you visited her down there?” The court refused to exclude this question, and an exception was noted. The question was not answered, and no further exceptions were noted to this line of interrogation. Even if this line of enquiry was not germain to the issue of the defendant’s withholding the means of support from his wife and-child, by spending time and money in immoral conduct, sufficient objection and exceptions to specific testimony do not appear in the bill of exceptions to enable the court to pass upon asserted errors.
There are a number of other assignments of error on the admission or rejection of testimony, but upon a full consideration of them it appears that no fundamental rights of the defendant have been violated. Even If there be technical errors in rejecting or admitting testimony, there is ample evidence to support the verdict and the,errors, if any, are apparently harmless and should not cause a reversal of the judgment of conviction. Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 South. Rep. 713; Rhodes v. State, filed this day.
Numerous errors are assigned on the giving and refusal of charges, but no material or harmful errors appear therein; and as the charges given fully and fairly cover the law applicable to the facts, there is no ground for reversal. See Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22, 54 South. Rep. 458; Hopkins v. State, 52 Fla. 39, 42 South. Rep. 52.
The judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hock-er, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Casso v. State, 182 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…gality of the trial itself, is not ground for reversal ■where the other evidence as a whole leaves no room for reasonable doubt of the accused’s guilt. Hopkins v. State, 52 Fla. 89, 42 So. 52; Rhodes v. State, 65 Fla. 541, 62 So. 653; Bell v. State, 65 Fla. 505, 62 So. 654; Edington v. State, 81 Fla. 634, 88 So. 468. And this rule has been applied in cases involving admission of evidence allegedly obtained by an illegal arrest and search. Perez v. State, Fla.App.1963, 151 So. 2d 686; Dorsey v. United State…
-
Ward v. State, 75 Fla. 756 (Fla. 1918)…he evidence it was cured by the verdict of the jury which found the defendant guilty of manslaughter thus discarding the State’s theory of a killing from a premeditated design and acquitting the defendant- of the charge of murder. See Bell v. State, 65 Fla. 505, 62 South. Rep. 654; Smith v. State, 66 Fla. 135, 63 South. Rep. 138. The eighth assignment of error which is based upon the court’s ruling sustaining the State Attorney’s objection to a question propounded to the witness Mickler on cross-examinati…
-
Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 586 (Fla. 1920)…ful error is not made to appear. Sandlin v. [*588] State, 76 Fla. 368, 79 South. Rep. 714; Wooten v. State, 24 Fla. 335, 5 South. Rep. 39; Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22, 54 South. Rep. 458; Johnson v. State, 55 Fla. 41, 46 South. Rep. 174; Bell v. State, 65 Fla. 505, 62 South. Rep. 654; Street v. State, 76 Fla. 217, 79 South. Rep. 729; Boyington v. State, 77 Fla. 606, 81 South. Rep. 890. The judgment should not be reversed or a new trial granted in any case, civil or criminal, for errors in rulings upon the ad…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wallace v. State, 26 So. 713 (Fla. 1899)
- Hopkins v. State, 52 Fla. 39 (Fla. 1906)
- Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22 (Fla. 1911)