A. I. BAKER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
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 assault with intent to commit manslaughter, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting certain testimony or in denying a motion for a new trial.
No, the trial court did not err in admitting the testimony as it was part of the res gestae, and it did not err in denying the motion for a new trial because there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict.
“Certain testimony was admitted over his objection, but as it appears to have been part of the res gestae, the court was without error in admitting it.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for upholding the admission of evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was convicted of assault with intent to commit manslaughter. The conviction was based on conflicting testimony, with the prosec…
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 Jury'S Role In Weighing Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Brown, J.
Plaintiff in error was convicted of assault with intent to commit manslaughter. Certain testimony was admitted over his objection, but as it appears to have been part of the res gestae, the court was without error in admitting it. The testimony was in conflict. The defendant had the advantage so far as the number of witnesses was concerned, but there was by the testimony of two witnesses, sufficient evidence, if true, to sustain the verdict. Whether this evidence was true, was a question for the jury. They had the witnesses before them and heard them testify, and the trial judge, who had like opportunity, declined to set aside the verdict. Upon the testimony disclosed by the record, most of which was reduced to narrative form in an apparently hurried and haphazard manner, embracing also numerous clerical errors impairing its intelligibility, we would not be authorized to hold that the trial judge was in error in denying the motion for new trial.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Ellis, J., concur. .Whitfield, P.- J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.