CHARLIE CLARK
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.
Charlie Clark was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings or in the sufficiency of identification evidence.
The court held that identification evidence was sufficient because the eyewitness testimony was positive and unequivocal, and the jury believed her account. The trial judge's questions to the defense witness were proper because the judge was merely seeking to clarify the facts and instructed the jury not to infer that his questions reflected any opinion on witness credibility.
“The identification by one who testified she was an eye witness was positive and unequivocal. The jury evidently believed she spoke the truth and that question was settled.”
Establishes that eyewitness identification was sufficient and the jury credited the identification evidence
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClark was accused of unlawful assault. An eyewitness testified positively and unequivocally to Clark's identity as the person who committed the assaul…
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 Judicial Questioning Of Witnesses cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of error brings for review judgment of conviction of assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree.
Two questions' are stated by attorney for plaintiff in error in his brief. The first questions the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the identity of the accused'as the person committing the alleged unlawful assault. The identification by one who testified she was' an eye witness was posi*311tive and unequivocal. The jury evidently believed she spoke the truth and that question was settled.
By the second question is challenged the propriety of certain questions, propounded to a witness for the defense by the trial judge.
We find no reversible error to have been committed by the court in this regard. The record shows that the trial judge was simply trying to get at the facts as related by the witness and he instructed the jury when objections were interposed after the questions had been asked and answered, that this was his sole purpose and that the jury should not draw any inference from his questions that he had any opinion one way or another as to whether or not the witness was speaking the truth. Certainly if the trial judge is not clear as to what a witness is attempting to state as facts in a case, he should have the witness clarify the statements so that there may be no doubt as to what the witness' purports to state. The severity of the sentence in this case impels us to say that it is a proper one to be submitted to the consideration of the State Board of Pardons.
We find no reversible error in the record.
Judgment affirmed.
So ordered.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCLOUD v. State, 335 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1976)…, 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 was improperly or unfairly taken, or that the facts adduced from…
-
Andrews v. State, 172 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…merit to the grounds for reversal asserted by the first point. The trial judge’s interrogation of witnesses was of such nature as to clarify the issues and was conducted within the bounds of his judicial authority. See Clark v. State, 122 Fla. 310, 165 So. 44 (1935), and Williams v. State, 143 So. 2d 484 (Fla.1962). Appellant’s second point is likewise without merit. The general rule in this jurisdiction requires exclusion of collateral evidence that tends to suggest the commission of an independent cri…
-
Younghans v. State, 97 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)…e as to require additional interrogation by the court in order to determine their substance. Certainly, if the trial judge was not clear as to what a witness was attempting to state, he should have the witness clarify the statements. Clark v. State, 122 Fla. 310, 165 So. 44. The participation by the court in the questioning of the witness was not shown to have in any way prejudiced the right of the defendant to a fair trial. We find no error on assignments five and six. The crime of which the defendant is…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence