FRANCIS PARKER, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for statutory rape, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on evidence, jury instructions, or the reading of the indictment.
The court held that any error in excluding testimony about the mother's hostility was harmless given other evidence. The refused instructions were either legally incorrect or covered by given charges. The motion for a new trial was properly overruled as the record and juror affidavits indicated the indictment was read.
“As a letter written by the witness to the defendant and shown in evidence indicated a hostile attitude of the witness to the defendant, the exclusion of the testimony of the witness on that subject was harmless, if error.”
Establishes the reasoning for deeming the exclusion of testimony harmless error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant, Parker, was convicted of statutory rape. During the trial, the court sustained objections to questions about the prosecutrix's mother's…
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 Motion For New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This writ of error is to’ a judgment convicting Parker of the statutory offence of having carnal intercourse with an unmarried female under the ag'e of eighteen years.
The court sustained objections to questions asked the mother of the prosecutrix as to whether she was unfriendly to the accused. As a letter written by the witness to the defendant and shown in evidence indicated a hostile attitude of the witness to the defendant, the exclusion of the testimony of the witness on that subject was harmless, if error. In so far as requested instructions were refused, they were either incorrect as statements of the law, or were sufficiently c'overed by charges given.
A ground of the motion for new trial was that the indictment was not read to the defendant. This ground was supported by an affidavit of the defendant that the indictment was not read. The record proper states that the defendant “on being arraigned plead not guilty;” and the court, on an affidavit of the jurors that the indictment was read when the defendant was arraigned, overruled the motion. No error is made to appear. The testimony is ample to sustain the .verdict, and the judgment is affirmed.
Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Cockrell and Ellis, JJ., concur. Whitfield, J., absent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cassie Williams v. State, 73 Fla. 1198 (Fla. 1917)…neral charge upon circumstantial evidence taken in connection with charges numbered one and two which were requested by the defendant and given, covered the subject of those requested and refused. In such case there is no error. See Parker v. State, 70 Fla. 152, 69 South. Rep. 696; Hoskins v. State, 70 Fla. 186, 69 South. Rep. 701; Bass v. State, 58 Fla. 1, 50 South. Rep. 531; Pelham v. State, 70 Fla. 295, 70 South. Rep. 87; Fine v. State, 70 Fla. 412, 70 South. Rep. 379. [*1207] No 'harmful error having b…
-
Singleton v. State, 183 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…uch issue may be so raised, a further question would then recur, how much proof would be required to establish the fact, and what would happen if such proof was similarly contravened ? This latter situation was partially involved in Parker v. State, 70 Fla. 152, 69 So. 696, but was given no definite answer.5 But fortunately for defendant, her counsel took steps within time to rectify the deficiency by correcting the state of the record here so as to remove any doubt as to the right of this Court to consid…
-
Dunk Harris v. State, 75 Fla. 527 (Fla. 1918)…defendant was charged and the court in its general charge instructed [*532] the jury fully upon the subject. The refusal to give the requested instruction was therefore not error. See Pelham v. State, 70 Fla. 295, 70 South. Rep. 87; Parker v. State, 70 Fla. 152, 69 South. Rep. 696; Fine v. State, 70 Fla. 412, 70 South. Rep. 379. But in view of the verdict which was for murder in the second degree the question becomes immaterial because the element of premeditation is not present in the offense of murder in…