RAYMOND JOHNSON, 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.
Raymond Johnson was convicted of manslaughter after being indicted for murder in the second degree. On appeal, he challenged the admission of certain testimony and the denial of a new trial, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error.
The court held that no reversible error occurred. It is not error to permit non-expert testimony about gunshot wounds and their lethality. Even if testimony about the defendant's statements was improperly admitted, it was harmless because the defendant admitted the killing and claimed self-defense. Testimony about improper relations between the deceased and the defendant's wife was properly excluded as irrelevant to the issues at trial. The verdict was supported by ample evidence.
“It is not error to permit a non-expert witness to testify as to the nature of pistolshot wounds in the body of a person recently deceased and to state that the wounds, being 'two big wounds' in the breast, were sufficient to cause the death of the person.”
Establishes the admissibility of lay testimony regarding the nature and lethality of gunshot wounds.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRaymond Johnson was indicted for murder in the second degree but was convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter. The evidence showed that Johnson …
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 Admissibility Of Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
Upon an indictment for murder in the second degree Raymond Johnson was convicted of manslaughter, and on writ of error argues here that errors were committed in stated rulings upon the admissibility of testimony and in denying a new trial.
It is not error to permit a non-expert witness to testify as to the nature of pistolshot wounds in the body of a person recently deceased and to state that the wounds, b'eing “two big wounds” in the breast, were sufficient to cause the death of the person. Edwards v. State, 39 Fla. 753, 23 South. Rep. 537; Revels v. State, 64 Fla. 432, 59 South. Rep. 951. It is conceded that the wounds caused the death, the defense interposed being the right of self-defense. Bellamy v. State, 56 Fla. 43, 47 South. Rep. 868.
The testimony as to statements made by the defendant that he killed the deceased, even if improperly admitted in evidence, was harmless, since the defendant admitted the killing and claimed self-defense as a justification.
There was no error in excluding testimony tending to show improper relations between the deceased and the defendant’s wife, as such matters had no direct bearing upon the issues being tried.
There' is ample evidence to sustain the verdict and no errors of law or of procedure appear. The judgment should not be reversed or a new trial granted in any case, civil or criminal, for errors in rulings upon the admission or rejection of evidence, or for errors in giving or refusing charges, or for errors in any other matter of procedure or practice, unless it shall appear to' the court from a consideration of the entire cause that such errors injuriously affect the substantial rights • of the complaining party. Nor should a judgment be reversed or a new trial granted on the ground that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence, unless it appears that there was no substantial evidence to support the finding, or that upon the whole evidence the verdict is clearly wrong, or that the jury were not -governed by the evidence in making their finding. Welles v. Bryant, 68 Fla. 113, 66 South. Rep. 562.
Judgment affirmed.
Browne, O. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Young v. State, 85 Fla. 348 (Fla. 1923)…he evidence, unless it appears that there was no substantial evidence to support the finding, or that upon the whole evidence the verdict is clearly wrong, or that the jury were not governed by the evidence in making-their finding. Johnson v. State, 80 Fla. 61, 85 South. Rep. 155; Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 586, 84 South. Rep. 541; Sandlin v. State, 76 Fla. 368, 79 South. Rep. 714; Crane v. [*365] State, 76 Fla. 236, 79 South. Rep. 806; Kersey v. State, 73 Fla. 832, 74 South. Rep. 983; Seymour v. State, 66 F…
-
Shuler v. State, 84 Fla. 414 (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; 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 in any case, civil or criminal, for- errors in ruli…
-
Breen v. State, 84 Fla. 518 (Fla. 1922)…State, 61 Fla. 22, 54 South. Rep. 458; Goff v. State, 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…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Edwards v. State, 39 Fla. 753 (Fla. 1897)
- Welles v. Bryant, 68 Fla. 113 (Fla. 1914)
- Gus Revels v. State, 64 Fla. 432 (Fla. 1912)
- Butts v. Lilly Mobley, 68 Fla. 129 (Fla. 1914)
- Bellamy v. State, 56 Fla. 43 (Fla. 1908)