WILLIAM ARMSTRONG, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 court held that the trial judge properly refused to allow evidence detailing the appellant's prior shooting, as it was not relevant to the current charge.
Appellant was charged with second-degree murder and convicted of manslaughter. He sought to introduce evidence of the deceased's violent character, sp…
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 Admissibility Of Character Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was charged with second degree murder. He was tried by jury and found guilty of manslaughter. He was subsequently adjudicated to be guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to a term of ten years in state prison. He appeals the judgment and assigns as error the court’s refusal to allow evidence of the violent and dangerous character of the deceased to be presented to the jury.
According to the record the only relevant evidence the judge refused to allow was the details of how the appellant had been previously shot. He allowed the appellant to testify that he had been shot in the arm and that his arm was paralyzed as a result of the shooting. What he did not allow, and properly so, were the details of the prior shooting of the defendant. This question has been answered many times by the courts of Florida beginning with Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113, 9 So. 835 (1891); Cole v. State, Fla.App.1966, 193 So.2d 47; Coker v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 648.
It is this court’s opinion that the trial judge went further in allowing the conduct of the deceased to be put into evidence than Garner, Cole and Coker would require. For this reason the judgment and sentence is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trailer Ranch, Inc. v. City OF Pompano Beach, 500 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1986)…A condemning authority exercising the power of eminent domain is not permitted to acquire a greater quantity of property or interest therein than is necessary to serve the public purpose for which the property is acquired. Canal Authority v. Miller, 243 So. 2d 181, 133 (Fla.1970). Article X, section 6 of the Florida Constitution provides that a landowner whose property is taken for a public purpose is entitled to full compensation for what is actually taken. By excluding the city’s evidence sub judice, the tr…
-
Dennis v. Louie L. Wainwright, 247 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…PIERCE, Chief Judge. On January 22, 1971, this Court issued opinion in this cause, 243 So. 2d 181, reciting that a previous notice of appeal dated June 4, 1969, filed on behalf of petitioner Larry J. Dennis seeking to review a judgment and sentence of the Pinellas County Circuit Court entered on May 8, 1969, had been dismissed by this Court on F…
Authorities Cited
- Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113 (Fla. 1891)
- Cole v. State, 193 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Isiah Coker v. State, 212 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)