WILLIAM O. CHESSER, 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.
William Chesser was indicted for murder in the first degree but convicted of murder in the second degree. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting evidentiary challenges on the ground that any technical errors were harmless given the sufficiency of evidence supporting the verdict.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that even if the evidentiary rulings were technically erroneous, they were harmless because the evidence of guilt was ample and no fundamental rights were infringed. The evidence sufficiently supported the jury's verdict of murder in the second degree based on Chesser's own testimony regarding the homicide.
“it is injury resulting from error, not error alone, that warrants an appellate court in reversing a judgment of conviction upon an indictment for crime”
Establishes the foundational principle that technical errors are harmless unless they cause actual injury to the defendant
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChesser was charged with murder in the first degree and tried before a jury. He testified as a defendant witness and presented his own account of the …
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 Fundamental Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
Upon an indictment charging murder in the first degree plaintiff in error was tried and convicted of murder in the second degree. To review the judgment imposing the sentence writ of error was taken from this court.
Assignments of error question the propriety of rulings of the court below made during the'progress of the trial excluding or admitting evidence, but the view we take of the case renders it unnecessary to discuss these assignments. The evidence excluded, accepting the theory of the defense, went only to the question of the credibility of certain State witnesses, while the evidence admitted over objections of defendant went to the question of the reputation of the deceased. Even if technically erroneous, it is clear, considering the entire case, that there is harmful error in none of these rulings, and the rule is well established in this jurisdiction that it is injury resulting from error, not error alone, that warrants an appellate court in reversing a judg*ment of conviction upon an indictment for crime. Sec. 2812, Rev. Gen. Stat. The ruling denying the motion of defendant for new trial is assigned as error. This motion presents the question of the sufficiency of evidence to support the verdict. Defendant testified as a witness in his own behalf. From his own statement of the facts surrounding the homicide tbe jury was justified in finding Mm guilty of murder in the second degree. In this situation he is in no position to find fault with rulings even though technically erroneous, excluding or admitting evidence of the character involved here. The principal is well established that a judgment of conviction will not be reversed, even if technical errors were committed-in rulings on the -admissibility of evidence, where the evidence of-guilt is ample and no fundamental rights of the defendant are infringed. (Ward v. State, supra); Ward v. State, 82 Fla. 383, 90 South. Rep. 157; Poyner v. State, 81 Fla. 726, 88 South Rep. 762; McQuagge v. State, 80 Fla. 768, 87 South. Rep. 60; Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 587, 84 South. Rep. 541; Higgins v. State, 78 Fla. 459, 83 South. Rep. 267.
The judgment is affirmed.
Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Diamante Urga v. State, 155 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…matters testified to were independently attested by other competent witnesses. Other Florida decisions relative to the same general principle in criminal cases include Smith v. State, 1937, 129 Fla. 388, 176 So. 506, 508; and Chesser v. State, 1923, 85 Fla. 151, 95 So. 610, where the testimony of the accused was held sufficient to sustain his conviction notwithstanding the admission of incompetent evidence adduced by prosecution. See also Kelly v. State, 1941, 145 Fla. 491, 199 So. 764, citing Hopkins v. S…
-
Butler v. State, 94 Fla. 163 (Fla. 1927)…of conviction will not ordinarily be reversed, even if technical errors were committed in rulings on the admissibility of evidence, where the evidence of guilt is ample and no fundamental rights of the accused have been infringed. Chasser v. State, 85 Fla. 151, 95 South. Rep. 610; Linsley v. State, 101 South. Rep. 273. We fully appreciate the extreme delicacy of duty involved in a pronouncement by an appellate court that testimony the admission of which might be technical error was nevertheless not harmfu…
-
Smith v. State, 129 Fla. 388 (Fla. 1937)…ad been committed in the reception of testimony, it became harmless when defendant took the stand as a witness in his own behalf and testified to such a state of facts as clearly showed him guilty of murder in the first degree. See Chesser v. State, 85 Fla. 151, 95 Sou. 610. The contention presented by the Fifth Question is not [*395] supported by. the record. The defendant testified in effect that the jailer and also the State’s attorney advised him to confess and held out to him the hope that by doing s…
Authorities Cited
- Morton C. Nichols v. Walton, 82 Fla. 385 (Fla. 1921)
- Pratt Poyner v. State, 81 Fla. 726 (Fla. 1921)
- Riggins v. State, 78 Fla. 459 (Fla. 1919)
- McQuagge v. State, 80 Fla. 768 (Fla. 1920)
- Ward v. State, 82 Fla. 383 (Fla. 1921)