WILSON REEVES, ALIAS CHARLIE JAMES, 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.
Wilson Reeves (alias Charlie James) was convicted of first-degree murder for fatally cutting the deceased and appealed on writ of error. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that any procedural errors were harmless given the substantial evidence of guilt.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that none of the alleged errors were material or prejudicial. The testimony regarding the day of the week was not excludable merely because it may have been incorrect. The admission of evidence regarding the name change was not harmful error in light of the defendant's own testimony that he cut the deceased. The refusal of the requested instruction was not error warranting reversal given the ample evidence of guilt and the full jury instructions provided.
“testimony is not excluded merely because it is or may be incorrect or may or may not be prejudicial”
Establishes the court's standard for excluding testimony based on potential inaccuracy or prejudice
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe homicide occurred on Tuesday, February 3, 1914. The defendant testified that he had cut the deceased and admitted under questioning that he had ch…
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 Requested Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
The plaintiff in error having been convicted of murder in the first degree for fatally cutting the deceased, took writ of error. It was clearly shown that the homicide was committed on Tuesday, February 3, 1914, as alleged, and the contention that the testimony of a witness that February 3, 1914, was on Monday, should have been excluded by the court of its own motion, is clearly untenable. Even if the point could be material in this case, testimony is not excluded merely because it is or may be incorrect or may or may not be prejudicial.
The defendant testified without objection that he had changed his name from Wilson Reeves to Charlié James and objection was made-to the question: “What did you change it for?” on the ground that “it has nothing to do with the crime and as tending to show other specific evidence.” The objection was overruled and an exception was noted. In answer to the question the defendant said. “I had killed a man.” In view of the testimony of the defendant that he cut the deceased and the other evidence as to the circumstances of the fatal cutting, the above ruling was not harmful, if error. i
Exception was taken to a refusal of the court to -give the following requested instruction: “Under the.statute, the accused can only be punished for such degree of the offense charged against him as the testimony discloses and this notwithstanding a full confession of guilt.” This language was used by this court in Green v. State, 40 Fla. 474, 24 South. Rep. 537, in discussing the statute relative to a finding of the degree of unlawful homicide even where there is a confession of guilt on arraignment. The evidence in this case is amply sufficient to sustain the verdict found regardless of the confession put in evidence. This being so, even if the refusal of the requested instruction could be regarded as a technical error of procedure, it could not have injuriously affected any substantial right of the accused; and particularly in view of the full charges given, it does not warrant a reversal of the judg ment of conviction. See Chancey v. State, decided at this term.
Even if the evidence of a confession was erroneously admitted, it could not have injured the defendant in view of the evidence of guilt adduced by him and other witnesses. See Moore v. State, decided this term.
The evidence being ample to sustain the verdict, and there being nothing to indicate that the jury were not governed by the evidence, and no material or prejudicial errors of procedure being made to appear, the judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor and Hocker, J. J., concur. Cockrell, J., absent, by reason of illness in his family.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shuler v. State, 84 Fla. 414 (Fla. 1922)…tate, 61 Fla. 22, 54 South. Rep. 458; Goff v. State, 60 Fla. 13, 53 South. Rep. 327; Owens v. State, 65 Fla. 483, 62 South. Rep. 651; Pittman v. State, 82 Fla. 24, 89 South. Rep. 336; Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 586, 84 South. Rep. 541; Reeves v. State, 68 Fla. 96, 66 South. Rep. 432; Johnson v. State, 80 Fla. 61, 85 South. Rep. 155, and other similar decisions as to harmless error of procedure, the judgment of conviction herein should be affirmed. The judgment should not be reversed or a new trial granted i…
-
Breen v. State, 84 Fla. 518 (Fla. 1922)…ate, 60 Fla. 13, 53 South. Rep. 327; Owen v. State, 66 Fla. 483, 62 South. Rep. 651; Pitman v. State, 82 Fla. 24, 89 South. Rep. 336; Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 586, 84 South. Rep. 541; Johnson v. State, 80 Fla. 61, 85 South. Rep. 155; Reeves v. State, 68 Fla. 96, 66 South. Rep. 432; Lewis v. State, and Shuler v. State, decided at this term, and other similar decisions as to harmless error of procedure, the judgment of conviction herein should be affirmed. At the trial the mental and legal responsibility of…
-
Lewis v. State, 84 Fla. 466 (Fla. 1922)…e, 60 Fla. 13, 53 South. Rep. 327; Owens v. State, 65 Fla. 483, 62 South. Rep. 651; Pittman v. State, 82 Fla. 24, 89 South. Rep. 336; Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 586, 84 South. Rep. 541; Johnson v. State, 80 Fla. 61, 85 South. Rep. 155; Reeves v. State, 68 Fla. 96, 66 South. Rep. 432, and other similar decisions as to harmless error of procedure, the judgment of conviction herein should be affirmed. The judgment should not be reversed or a new trial granted in any ease, civil or criminal, for errors in rulin…
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
- Jonah Green v. State, 40 Fla. 474 (Fla. 1898)