EARL H. BRONSON
v.
STATE
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 reversed a conviction for breaking and entering because the trial court improperly admitted evidence of prior similar offenses. The court found this evidence prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair trial.
Yes, it was reversible error to admit the testimony regarding the defendant's prior similar offense. Such evidence materially violated the defendant's rights.
“The only reversible error found in the record is that over the objection of the defendant witnesses- for the State were allowed to testify to the effect that defendant had, at a time •long prior to- the commission of the offense for which he was being tried and in another county, participated in the commission of a like offense.”
Identifies the primary error found by the court.
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 breaking and entering a building with intent to commit grand larceny. During the trial, the State presented testimony f…
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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
Writ of error here is to review' judgment of conviction of the offense of breaking and entering a building .of another with intent to commit grand larceny.
The only reversible error found in the record is that over the objection of the defendant witnesses- for the State were allowed to testify to the effect that defendant had, at a time •long prior to- the commission of the offense for which he was being tried and in another county, participated in the commission of a like offense.
Although the evidence appears strong and convincing against the defendant he denied the charge and the admitting of the testimony above referred to materially violated his rights. Bishop’s Criminal Procedure, 2nd Edition, Vol. 2, Sec. 1123, 8 R. C. L. 198; Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. 519, headnote 11; Boyatt v. State, 95 Fla. 597, 116 So. 476.
Judgment reversed.
So ordered.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Brown, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Erle W. McGOUGH v. State, 302 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1974)…. “. . . [T]he charge here under consideration may be committed by a single act or it may be committed by successive acts of the ■ same character extending over a period of time not exceeding the statute of limitations.” Then, in Bronson v. State, 117 Fla. 828, 158 So. 435 (1935), our Court, in reversing [*755] and concluding that even though the evidence appeared strong and convincing against the defendant, nevertheless found reversible error when the trial court permitted testimony of a similar crime “a…
-
Findley v. State, 124 Fla. 447 (Fla. 1936)…tores was admitted in evidence over the defendant’s objection. This testimony was inadmissible under the principles laid down by this Court in Boyett v. State, 96 Fla. 597, 116 So. 476; Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. 519, and Bronson v. State, 117 Fla. 828, 158 So. 435. While there are some exceptions to the general rule referred to in those cases, this case does not fall within the operation of any of such exceptions. It was not even shown in this case that this defendant participated in any of the o…
-
Padgett v. State, 53 So.2d 106 (Fla. 1951)…or knowledge of the defendant; or to show that the acts charged against him were not the result of accident, mistake, or inadvertence. See Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So. 479, 488; Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 So. 713; Bronson v. State, 117 Fla. 828, 158 So. 435; Wilson v. State, 134 Fla. 199, 183 So. 748; and Talley v. State, 160 Fla. 593, 36 So. 2d 201. *108 In the instant case there is not an iota of testimony except Walden's to connect the defendant with the crime for which he is charged.…
Authorities Cited
- Emelio Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42 (Fla. 1928)
- Vazquez v. Ailyn M. Rebaza Smith (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- Bud Boyett v. State, 95 Fla. 597 (Fla. 1928)