JESSE GOREY, 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.
Jesse Gorey was convicted of statutory rape under Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, holding that evidence of the victim's prior sexual relations was immaterial, that cross-examination of the defendant was properly allowed, and that jury instructions regarding the victim's chaste character were appropriate.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that it was not error to permit wide latitude cross-examination of a defendant who voluntarily testifies to test credibility, including questions about prior statements relevant to the issues being tried; that it was proper to instruct the jury the victim's prior chaste character was not in issue in a statutory rape prosecution; and that even if error occurred in admitting some confessions, other admissible evidence of confessions and ample evidence supported the verdict.
“On cross-examination of a defendant who voluntarily becomes a witness, a wide latitude is allowed to test the credibility of testimony given; and it is not error to permit proper questions as to previous statements or admissions of the witness, that are relevant to the issues being tried, even though the tendency of the question is unfavorable to the defendant.”
Establishes the broad scope of cross-examination permitted when a defendant testifies, allowing questions about prior statements and admissions relevant to the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJesse Gorey was convicted of carnal intercourse with an unmarried female under eighteen years of age, a statutory offense. During trial, the defendant…
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 Cross-Examination Of Defendant cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Jesse Gorey was convicted of having carnal intercourse with an unmarried female person under the age of eighteen years, a statutory offense. In such a prosecution evidence as to whether the prosecuting witness had had carnal intercourse or improper relations with other men was not material, the general reputation of the witness not being put in issue. On cross-examination of a defendant who voluntarily becomes a witness, a wide latitude is allowed to test the credibility of testimony given; and it is not error to permit proper questions as to previous statements or admissions of the witness, that are relevant to the issues being tried, even though the tendency of the question is unfavorable to the defendant. See Daly v. State, 67 Fla. 1, 64 South. Rep. 358; Bonner v. State, 67 Fla. 492, 65 South. Rep. 663.
It was not error in this case to charge the jury that the previous chaste character of the prosecuting witness was not in issue. See Holton v. State, 28 Fla. 303, 9 South. Rep. 716. Such charges were justified by the nature of the case and the character of the evidence adduced.
If error was committed in admitting testimony as to statements or confessions made by the defendant while in custody, there is other evidence of confessions not objectionable, and there is ample evidence to sustain the verdict. Charges requested may be refused when they are incorrect or inapplicable or have been covered by other charges given.
The judgment is affirmed.
All concur. Per Curiam.
Questions as to whether other persons than the defendant below had had improper rela tions with the prosecuting witness, and as to who maybe responsible for her condition of pregmancy are not within the issues under the statute then in force, the offense being statutory and is committed by mere carnal intercourse with an unmarried female under the age of eighteen years. §3521 Compiled Laws of 1914; §3521 Gen. Stats. 1906.
The transcript of the record does not clearly show an error in admitting evidence of confessions by the accused, since the confessions testified to were not shown to have been made under circumstances requiring the accused to be warned that confessions made by him could be used in evidence against him.
Rehearing denied.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bailey v. State, 76 Fla. 213 (Fla. 1918)…evidence, technical but harmless errors in rulings on the admission or rejection of testimony will not cause a reversal of the judgment. Graham v. Holmes, 73 Fla. 85, 74 South. Rep. 5; Owens v. State, 65 Fla. 483, 62 South. Rep. 651; Gorey v. State, 71 Fla. 195, 71 South. Rep. 328. While the legal effect of evidence. or the lack of evidence in its relation to a verdict rendered in a trial, may by appropriate proceedings be reviewed by an appellate court, yet conflicts in competent testimony, the weight of…
-
In the Interest of G. C. O. v. State, 309 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…tly retained for many centuries.” The law is well settled that when the accused voluntarily takes the stand he is subject to cross-examination and impeachment as any other witness. Dedge v. State, 1914, 68 Fla. 240, 67 So. 43; Gorey v. State, 1916, 71 Fla. 195, 71 So. 328; Maloy v. State, 1906, 52 Fla. 101, 41 So. 791; Morris v. State, 1930, 100 Fla. 850, 130 So. 582; Story v. State, Fla.1951, 53 So. 2d 920. We have reviewed the evidence as a whole and the child’s testimony was inconsistent in many mater…
Authorities Cited
- Daly v. State, 67 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1914)
- Holton v. State, 28 Fla. 303 (Fla. 1891)
- Bonner v. State, 67 Fla. 492 (Fla. 1914)