D. M. SEYMOUR AND C. P. AIKEN, PLAINTIFFS 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.
Aiken was convicted of burning an insured building with intent to injure the insurer, and Seymour was convicted as an accessory. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed both convictions, holding that the admission of insurance agent testimony and any procedural errors were harmless given the ample evidence of guilt.
The court held that it was not error to permit the insurance agent to testify from his records about the policy's issuance and existence, as this was a criminal prosecution by the State and the defendants could not be compelled to produce evidence tending to incriminate them. Any technical errors in procedure and evidentiary rulings were harmless given the ample and positive evidence of guilt.
“As this was not an action on the policy by the parties thereto, but a criminal prosecution by the State, and as the defendants were the insured who were entitled to the policy, and could not be required to produce it or any evidence that would tend to criminate them, it was not error to permit the insurance agent who issued the policy to testify from his records as to matters within his province and knowledge relative to the issuance and existence of the policy on the building when it was burned.”
Establishes the court's rationale for permitting insurance agent testimony in a criminal prosecution, distinguishing it from civil policy action cases.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAiken burned a building that was insured against fire loss with the intent to injure the insurer. Seymour was charged as an accessory to this crime. A…
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 Accessory Before The Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
Aiken was convicted of the statutory offense of burning a building which was insured against loss or damage by fire with intent to injure the insurer, and Seymour was convicted of being an accessory thereto. On writ of error taken by both defendants below, errors are assigned on questions of procedure, on the admission of evidence and on charges given and refused. Counsel for the plaintiffs in error states in his brief that “if the evidence was properly admitted by the court, it was abundant to sustain the conviction.”
The court permitted an insurance agent to testify that a policy of insurance was issued upon the property destroyed by fire, and to matters with reference to such policy. As this was not an action on the policy by the parties, thereto, but a criminal prosecution by the State, and as the defendants were the insured who were entitled to the policy, and could not be required to produce it or any evidence that would .tend to criminate them, it was not error to permit the insurance agent who issued the policy to testify from his records as to matters within his province and knowledge relative to the issuance and existence of the policy on the building when it was burned. See Camp v. State, 58 Fla. 12.
Errors if any committed in giving or refusing charges, and in rulings on the admissibility of - testimony and other matters of procedure, did not affect any fundamental rights of the defendants, and it appears from the whole record that if technical errors were committed they were not prejudicial to the defendants, the eyidence of guilt being ample and positive. Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22, 54 South. Rep. 458; Bell v. State and Rhodes v. State, decided at the last term.
The judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor and Hocker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Henderson v. State, 94 Fla. 318 (Fla. 1927)…s before the statute was enacted. Butler v. State, decided at the January Term, 1927, of this Court; Ellis v. State, 86 Fla. 56, 97 So. 287; Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 586; 84 So. 541; Settles v. [*344] State, 75 Fla. 296, 78 So. 287; Seymour v. State, 66 Fla. 133, 63 So. 7; McQuagge v. State, 80 Fla. 768, 87 So. 60; Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22, 54 So. 458; Cooley v. State, 85 Fla. 46, 95 So. 126; Joyner v. State, 85 Fla. 384, 96 So. 155; Shuler v. State, 84 Fla. 414, 93 So. 672; Crawford v. State, 86 Fla. 94, 9…
-
Kersey v. State, 73 Fla. 832 (Fla. 1917)…Browne, C. J., concurring. I think the evidence is ample to justify the verdict; and on the doctrine laid down in Seymour v. State, 66 Fla. 133, 63 South. Rep. 7, quoted at the conclusion of the opinion in this case, I concur therein.…1 / 2
-
Young v. State, 85 Fla. 348 (Fla. 1923)…rror, when the evidence properly admitted is conclusive 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…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22 (Fla. 1911)
- Camp v. State, 58 Fla. 12 (Fla. 1909)