CALVIN RHODES, 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.
Calvin Rhodes was convicted of assault with intent to murder in Lake County Circuit Court. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that the trial court's exclusion of certain cross-examination questions and evidence regarding prior threats did not constitute reversible error given the strength of the evidence of guilt.
The Court held that exclusion of the cross-examination question regarding prior difficulty was not reversible error because the victim's own testimony about being shot twice provided sufficient basis for presuming animus without such additional questions. Additionally, exclusion of evidence of prior threats was not reversible error because there was no showing that such threats were communicated to the accused, and the overwhelming evidence of guilt left no room for reasonable doubt.
“the difficulty in which this witness was shot twice, receiving grievous wounds at the hands of the defendant, was fully testified about by the witness, and it was fully calculated to arouse considerable animus in the witness towards the defendant”
Establishes why exclusion of evidence about prior difficulty was not prejudicial—the victim's own testimony about the shooting sufficiently demonstrated motive for bias.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRhodes was indicted, tried, and convicted of assault with intent to murder in the Circuit Court of Lake County. The victim, Pink Fisher, was shot twic…
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 Assault With Intent To Commit Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
Taylor, J.
The plaintiff in error was indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced for the crime of assáult with intent to murder in the Circuit Court of Lake County, and brings his case here for review by writ of error. On the cross-examination of the State’s witness, Pink Fisher, who was the party assaulted and shot by the defendant, the following question was propounded by the defendant’s attorney: “Did not you and this defendant have some previous difficulty shortly prior to the difficulty now in question?” but this question was excluded by the court on objection by the State, and such ruling is assigned as error. While no error would have been committed in permitting this question to be answered, yet we cannot see that the defendant suffered such injury by its exclusion as to justify a reversal. As to the contention that the question was proper to show the animus of the witness towards the defendant, the reply is obvious that the difficulty in which this witness was shot twice, receiving grievous wounds at the hands of the defendant, was fully testified about by the witness, and it was fully calculated to arouse considerable animus in the witness towards the defendant, and the defendant had the full benefit of any presumption of animus on the part of the witness growing out of or engendered by difficulties between them. The question did not tend to elucidate the point as to who was the aggressor in the difficulty.
All of the other assignments of error presented here relate to the exclusion of prior threats made by the party assaulted towards the accused. There was no reversible error in the ruling complained of. At the time of the proffer of such proofs there was no offer to show that they were communicated to the accused in any manner. Alleged errors in the admission or rejection of testimony which do not weaken the effect of the admitted evidence, and which do not reach the legality of the trial itself,.will not be considered grounds for reversal where the evidence leaves no room for reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt. Hopkins v. State, 52 Fla. 39, 42 South. Rep. 52; Wilson v. State, 47 Fla. 118, 36 South. Rep. 580; Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22, 54 South. Rep. 458; Owens v. State, decided here at the present term.
We think the evidence sustains the verdict returned beyond any reasonable doubt; and we do not see' that the rejected evidence could have changed the result of the trial. Finding no reversible errors, the judgment of the Circuit Court in said cause is hereby affirmed at the cost of the plaintiff in error. Shackleford, C. J., and Cockrell, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kersey v. State, 73 Fla. 832 (Fla. 1917)…remaining assignment questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. AVe have no hesitancy in declaring that we are of the opinion that the evidence adduced is amply súfflcient to support the verdict rendered. See Rhodes v. State, 65 Fla. 541, 62 South. Rep. 653, and cases there cited. As we held in Seymour v. State, 66 Fla. 133, 63 South. Rep. 7, “A judgment of conviction will not be reversed on writ of error even if technical errors were committed in rulings on the admissibility of evi…
-
Young v. State, 85 Fla. 348 (Fla. 1923)…clusive of the defendant’s guilt. Hinson v. State, 62 Fla. 63, 56 South. Rep. 674; Edington v. State, 81 Fla. 634, 88 South. Rep. 468; Poyner v. State, 81 Fla. 726, 88 South. Rep 762; Seymour v. State, 66 Fla. 133, 63 South. Rep. 7; Rhodes v. State, 65 Fla. 541, 62 South. Rep. 635; Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 South. Rep. 713; Wilson v. State, 47 Fla. 118, 36 South. Rep. 580; Synes v. State, 78 Fla. 167, 82 South. Rep. 778; Sims v. State, 54 Fla. 100, 44 South. Rep. 737; Patrick v. Kirkland, 53 Fla. 7…
-
Casso v. State, 182 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…ssion of testimony, not affecting the legality 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…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hopkins v. State, 52 Fla. 39 (Fla. 1906)
- Wilson v. State, 47 Fla. 118 (Fla. 1904)
- Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22 (Fla. 1911)