NORMAN KIRKLAND, 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 deserting a minor child, holding that any error in admitting potentially prejudicial testimony was cured by its subsequent striking and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
The court held that even if the initial overruling of the motion to strike was an error, it was not prejudicial because the question and answer were subsequently struck from the record. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.
“If under the authority of Flores v. State, 72 Fla. 302, 73 South. Rep. 234; Williams v. State, 80 Fla. 286, 85 South. Rep. 917, it was error to overrule a motion without stating grounds to strike a question addressed to the wife of the defendant while testifying: “Is that the child you have in your lap?” no prejudice could reasonably have resulted to the defendant, since subsequently during the trial the following proceedings were had: “Court: Mr. Weeks, what was your motion about the child? Mr. Weeks: I moved to strike the question of counsel: ‘Is that the child you have on your lap?’ and the answer ‘Yes.’ Court: The motion on the part of the defendant to 'Strike that question and answer is granted. You will not consider that question.’’”
Explains why a potential error regarding a question to the defendant's wife was deemed harmless.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of deserting his minor child. A key issue was the defendant's paternity, as the child was born seven months after the marr…
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 Prejudicial Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This writ of error was taken to a judgment of conviction of the defendant of the statutory offense of deserting and withholding the means of support from his minor child. Sec. 5496, Rev. Gen. Stats., 1920. One of the issues was the defendant’s paternity of the child, which was born seven months after the marriage of its mother and the defendant. If under the authority of Flores v. State, 72 Fla. 302, 73 South. Rep. 234; Williams v. State, 80 Fla. 286, 85 South. Rep. 917, it was error to overrule a motion without stating grounds to strike a question addressed to the wife of the defendant while testifying: “Is that the child you have in your lap?” no prejudice could reasonably have resulted to the defendant, since subsequently during the trial the following proceedings were had: “Court: Mr. Weeks, what was your motion about the child? Mr. Weeks: I moved to strike the question of counsel: ‘Is that the child you have on your lap?’ and the answer ‘Yes.’ Court: The motion on the part of the defendant to 'Strike that question and answer is granted. You will not consider that question.’’
The testimony is amply sufficient to sustain the verdict which includes a finding as to the defendant’s paternity of the child and his desertion and withholding of support, and no prejudicial errors are presented by the record.
Affirmed.
Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Browne, West and Terrell, J. J., concur, =
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Flores v. State, 72 Fla. 302 (Fla. 1916)
- Raleigh Fred Williams v. State, 80 Fla. 286 (Fla. 1920)