P. M. STEELE, 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.
P. M. Steele was convicted of uttering a forged receipt after a trial on two counts (forgery and uttering). The trial court granted a new trial motion on the forgery count but denied it on the uttering count. Steele appealed via writ of error, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction because key assignments of error were either abandoned or not properly preserved for review.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. The first assignment of error was abandoned. The exclusion of proof regarding the witness's interest was not erroneous because that interest was already apparent from other evidence and constituted only cumulative proof on a collateral issue. The sufficiency of evidence claim could not be reviewed because the bill of exceptions did not contain all the evidence introduced at trial. The jury instruction claim was not properly preserved for review because no special charges were requested and the charges were not excepted to in the motion for new trial.
“Even if the proffer were properly made the ruling cannot be said to be harmful, for the reason that this interest, if interest affecting the witness' credibility may be said to result from the transaction stated, was undisputed and amply appeared from other evidence of the transaction, and could therefore be cumulative proof only and upon a collateral issue.”
Establishes the court's holding that excluding evidence of a witness's interest was harmless error because the interest was already apparent from other evidence and was merely cumulative on a collateral matter.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSteele was indicted for forgery and uttering a forged instrument. The alleged forged document was a receipt purporting to be from a state witness ackn…
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 Uttering A Forged Instrument cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
In an indictment containing two counts plaintiff in error was charged with forgery and uttering a forged instrument. The trial upon this indictment resulted in a verdict of guilty as charged. Motion for new trial was made and granted as to the first count charging forgery, but denied as to the second count charging the uttering of a forged receipt. To review the judgment imposing sentence writ of error was taken.
The ruling of the trial court denying defendant’s motion to require the State to elect between the two counts of the indictment before proceeding with the trial is assigned as error, but this assignment is abandoned.
The second assignment is based upon a ruling excluding certain proffered proof tending to discredit, by showing his interest, the evidence of the principal State witness. The alleged forged Avriting, for the uttering of which defendant Avas convicted, purported to be a receipt from this State witness to the defendant for money, acknowledging payment of the amount stated in the receipt, upon an indebtedness due by defendant to the witness, as mortgagee, and secured by a mortgage of defendant upon farm lands OAvned by him. It AAras uttered by being offered in evidence by defendant before 'the master in proof of payment, or partial payment, in a suit to foreclose the mortgage, in which suit the property was sold and purchased by the witness. So far as the record discloses, the foreclosure suit was finally determined before the trial of this case. Even if the proffer were properly made the ruling cannot be said to be harmful, for the reason that this interest, if interest affecting the AAdtness’ credibility may be said to result from the transaction stated, was undisputed and amply appeared from other evidence of the transaction, and could therefore be cnmulatiA^e proof only and upon a collateral issue. The ruling excluding it was therefore not erroneous. Barker v. State, 76 Fla. 164, 79 South. Rep 436; Settles v. State, 75 Fla. 296, 78 South. Rep. 287; Danford v. State, 53 Fla. 4, 43 South. Rep. 593; Wooldridge v. State, 49 Fla. 137, 38 South. Rep. 3.
By his motion for new trial the defendant presented the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. This ruling is not presented by th.e record in such a way that it may be reviewed. The certificate of the trial judge to the bill of exceptions is that it contains all the evidence introduced at the trial “.with the exceptions of the exhibits. ’ ’ There is an order directing the clerk of the trial court1 ‘ to send up to the supreme court all the original .exhibits introduced upon the trial,” and a number of original papers purporting to be exhibits were brought with the record to this court, -but none of them are so identified and authenticated by the bill of exceptions as to be considered a part of it. Florida Land Inv. Co. v. Williams, 84 Fla. 157, 92 South. Rep. 876; Florida Land Inv. Co. v. Williams, 83 Fla. 251, 91 South. Rep. 177. Since the bill of exceptions does not contain all of the evidence this question cannot be considered. Special Rule 1, Rules of Circuit Courts—Law Actions; Webb. v. Brown, 63 Fla. 306, 58 South. Rep. 27; Melrose Mfg. Co. v. Kennedy, 59 Fla. 312, 51 South. Rep 595; Pope v. State, 56 Fla. 81, 47 South. Rep. 487.
In the brief and in the oral' argument of the case here it was contended that charges given by the court to the Jury are infected with error. No special charges were requested, nor were any of the charges given made grounds for the motion for new trial. Not having been excepted to either in a motion for new trial or otherwise, the alleged error is not presented for review by this court. Sec. 2700 Rev. Gen. Stats; Stearns & Culver Lbr. Co. v. Adams, 55 Fla. 401, 45 South. Rep. 847; McSwain v. Howell, 29 Fla. 248, 10 South. Rep. 588.
No error having been made to appear the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1982)…ts attempt to show Capo’s involvement or interest in the case was surely harmless, as these matters were substantially put before the jury through the direct and cross-examination of Capo as well as the testimony of other witnesses. Steele v. State, 85 Fla. 57, 95 So. 299 (1923); Danford v. State, 53 Fla. 4, 43 So. 593 (1907). Finally, even if we were to consider the argument appellant presents, that the court’s sustaining the objection deprived him of the opportunity to develop a viable defense theory,…
-
Young v. State, 85 Fla. 348 (Fla. 1923)…ire ease ’ ’ is for the purpose of ascertaining 'whether the “error complained of” has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Charges given may be “complained of” by being-excepted to when given or embodied in a motion for new trial. Steele v. State, 85 Fla. 57, 95 South. Rep. 299; Bynum v. State, 46 Fla. 142, 35 South. Rep. 65, §2700 Rev. Gen. Stats. Errors contained in charges given but not objected to are waived. Errors waived are not complained of.” The “Harmless Error” statute (§2812 Rev. Gen. Stats.)…
-
Hoover v. State, 212 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…appellant has not brought these photographs up in the record on appeal. Generally, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict cannot be considered on appeal where the exhibits introduced are not made a part of the record. Steele v. State, 85 Fla. 57, 95 So. 299 (1923); Belfield v. Lochner, Fla.App. 1964, 162 So. 2d 668. It is axiomatic that an Appellate Court will not reverse a finding of fact by the lower court unless the error is patent on the record. Mixon v. State, Fla.1951, 54 So. 2d 190.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Carmine Charles Robert Falco v. State, 407 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1981)
- Pope v. State, 56 Fla. 81 (Fla. 1908)
- Danford v. State, 53 Fla. 4 (Fla. 1907)
- Mickens v. Mickens, 75 Fla. 391 (Fla. 1918)
- Settles v. State, 75 Fla. 296 (Fla. 1918)
- McSwain v. Howell, 29 Fla. 248 (Fla. 1892)
- The Stearns & Culver Lumber Co. v. Adams, 55 Fla. 401 (Fla. 1908)
- Wooldridge v. State, 49 Fla. 137 (Fla. 1905)
- Melrose Mfg. Co. v. Kennedy, 59 Fla. 312 (Fla. 1910)
- Barker v. The State of Flor'da, 76 Fla. 164 (Fla. 1918)