NORMAN ANDERSON, 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.
Norman Anderson was convicted of murder in the second degree after being charged with first-degree murder. On appeal, Anderson challenged the trial court's allowance of leading questions and claimed insufficient evidence, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting leading questions and that ample evidence supported the jury's verdict.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting leading questions, as such matters are within the judicial discretion of the trial court and not reviewable on writ of error. The evidence was ample to sustain the conviction for murder in the second degree.
“It is within the judicial discretion of the trial court to permit leading questions to be propounded to witnesses and the exercise of that discretion is not reviewable on Writ of Error by an appellate court.”
Establishes the standard that trial court discretion regarding leading questions is not subject to appellate review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNorman Anderson was indicted for murder in the first degree. At trial, he was found guilty of murder in the second degree. The trial court overruled A…
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 Leading Questions cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
Plaintiff in Error, Norman Anderson, was charged by indictment with the crime of murder in the first degree. He was found guilty of murder in the second degree. To review the judgment imposing sentence Writ of Error was taken from this Court.
The first question is presented by four assignments of error. All of them are upon rulings of the trial court overruling objections to questions, propounded by the State Attorney to witnesses, upon the ground that they were leading. It is within the judicial discretion of the trial court to permit leading questions to be propounded to witnesses and the exercise of that discretion is not reviewable oil Writ of Error by an appellate court. Stinson v. State, 76 Fla. 421, 80 South. Rep. 506; Padgett v. State, 64 Fla. 389, 59 South. Rep. 946; Penton v. State, 64 Fla. 411, 60 South. Rep. 343; Johnson v. State, 64 Fla. 321, 59 South. Rep. 894; Camp v. State, 58 Fla. 12, 50 South. Rep. 537; Falk v. Kimmerle, 57 Fla. 70, 49 South. Rep.
504. The conduct of the examination of-the witnesses, made the basis of assignments, was not such as to warrant a holding that there was an abuse of the discretion reposed in the trial court in overruling objections to questions upon the ground that they were leading. They seem to have been little, if any, more than were necessary to elicit from the reluctant witnesses facts within their knowledge.
The second question is the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. This is presented by a ruling denying a motion for new trial upon the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the verdict finding defendant guilty of murder in the second degree. It will be of no benefit to set out the evidence. Twelve jurymen in the discharge of their duty, who saw the witnesses and heard them testify, concur in the conclusion that the evidence proved defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. - This finding has the sanction of the-trial judge. The evidence is ample to sustain it. No error is made to appear. The judgment is affirmed.
Wi-iitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., Concur. Taylor, C. J. and Ellis and Browne, J. J., Concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCLOUD v. State, 335 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1976)…ing his own witness. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.450(a) ; Foremost Dairies, Inc. v. Cutler, 212 So. 2d 37 (Fla.4th DCA 1968). Here, however, the only issue was whether to permit leading questions to be asked of an uncooperative witness. . Anderson v. State, 88 Fla. 93, 101 So. 202 (1924). . Clark v. State, 122 Fla. 810, 165 So. 44 (1935). . See Robinson v. State, 161 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Connley v. United States, 46 F. 2d 53 (9th Cir.1931). . We note there is no suggestion that Robinson’s deposition…
-
Begley v. State, 483 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…ion of the child. The use of leading questions to a child of tender years is also within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Ellis v. State, 25 Fla. 702, 6 So. 768 (1889). See also McCloud v. State, 335 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1976); Anderson v. State, 88 Fla. 93, 101 So. 202 (1924); Padgett v. State, 64 Fla. 389, 59 So. 946 (1912). We also find no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated in this regard. POINT II Appellant next contends the trial court erred in permitting his estranged wife and a sexual c…
-
Rowe v. State, 128 Fla. 394 (Fla. 1937)…r, however, is in the discretion of the .court. It is not ground of error, and Appellate Courts universally refuse to review such exercise of discretion.” Further dealing with this question, the Attorney General cites the case of Anderson v. State, 88 Fla. 93, 101 So. 202, .wherein this court said: “The first question is presented by four assignments of error. All of them are upon rulings of the trial court overruling objections to questions, propounded by the State Attorney to witnesses, upon the ground…
Authorities Cited
- Stinson v. State, 76 Fla. 421 (Fla. 1918)
- Padgett v. State, 64 Fla. 389 (Fla. 1912)
- Joshea J. Gilliams v. State, 262 So. 3d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
- Johnson v. State, 64 Fla. 321 (Fla. 1912)
- Camp v. State, 58 Fla. 12 (Fla. 1909)
- Falk v. Kimmerle, 57 Fla. 70 (Fla. 1909)
- Ab Penton v. State, 64 Fla. 411 (Fla. 1912)