JOHN SMITH, 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 fraudulently altering animal marks, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to exclude hearsay testimony that corroborated the defendant's admissions.
No, the trial court did not err in refusing to exclude the hearsay testimony because it corroborated the defendant's admissions. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.
“There is positive testimony of two witnesses that the accused admitted he changed the marks as alleged.”
Establishes the basis for the conviction through direct evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was convicted of fraudulently altering the marks of two hogs. The conviction was based on the defendant's admissions to two wit…
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 Hearsay Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
—The plaintiff in error was convicted of the statutory offense of fraudulently altering and changing the marks of animals, to-wit: two hogs, not his own, with intent to claim the same and to prevent identification by the true owner. Chap. 5663 Acts of 1907, Sec. 3335a Compiled Laws of 1914. On writ of error it is contended that the court erred in refusing a requested instruction not to consider certain hearsay testimony, and in denying a motion for new trial on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict.
There is positive testimony of two witnesses that the accused admitted he changed the marks as alleged. The hearsay testimony to which the requested instruction referred was of one witness that a stated person told witness “Smith held one and he marked it, and Smith marked the other,” and the hearsay testimony of another witness that the same person “said he marked one of them according to John Smith’s instructions and Smith marked the other one, but he did not see Smith mark it.” This hearsay testimony was brought out by the accused on cross-examination and as it corroborated the admissions of the accused as testified to, it was not error to refuse the charge to exclude it.
There is substantial positive testimony as to the venue, and sufficient evidence to be a legal predicate for the verdict.
The judgment is affirmed.
Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Cockrell and Ellis, JJ., concur.