ROBERT LEE PEARSON AND CHARLES M. PEARSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE 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.
Robert Lee Pearson and Charles M. Pearson appealed their manslaughter convictions for a beating death. The appellate court rejected all challenges to the conviction, including insufficiency of evidence, trial court instructional error, and admissibility of expert testimony, and affirmed the conviction.
The court affirmed the conviction, finding no merit to the insufficiency of evidence argument, rejecting the charge instruction contention as unsupported by proper assignment of error and failure to request the charge or object at trial, and holding that the trial court properly admitted the expert testimony based on the pathologist's demonstrated skill, knowledge, and experience relevant to the subject matter.
[1] Sufficiency of the evidence is a valid ground for appeal.
[2] A contention regarding a trial court's failure to give a specific jury charge is waived if not supported by an assignment of error, a request to charge, or an objection a…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The question of competency of a doctor to so testify depends upon whether he is shown to have "such skill, knowledge or experience with respect to the subject matter about which he is called to testify that it appears to the trial court that his opinion will probably aid the jury in the resolution of an ultimate issue of fact."”
Establishes the standard for admitting expert testimony regardless of state licensure.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants and two other men beat a victim, who subsequently died from injuries sustained in the beating. The trial court allowed expert testimony…
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 Competency Of Expert Witness cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the defendants below from conviction of manslaughter. The victim died following a beating by the appellants and two other men. Upon examining the record we conclude there is no merit to the appellants’ argument as to insufficiency of the evidence. The contention of the appellants that the court erred by failing to give a certain charge relating to the elements of the offense is rejected. That contention was without the support of an assignment of error thereon. See Municipal Court in and for Coral Gables v. Giblin, Fla.App.1961, 126 So.2d 285. No request was made to the court to so charge, and no objection was made with regard thereto at trial. See Brown v. State, Fla.1968, 206 So.2d 377, 384; Gibson v. State, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 19, 20. No error was committed by the trial court in allowing, over objection, the presentation of expert testimony, from an experienced pathologist licensed as a medical doctor in another state, upon determination of his competency by the trial court, notwithstanding he had not been licensed as a doctor in Florida. The question of competency of a doctor to so testify depends upon whether he is shown to have “such skill, knowledge or experience with respect to the subject matter about which he is called to testify that it appears to the trial court that his opinion will probably aid the jury in the resolution of an ultimate issue of fact.” Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Lake Region Packing Ass'n, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 25, 20-31; Copeland v. State, 58 Fla. 26, 50 So. 621, 624; Schley v. State, 48 Fla. 53, 37 So. 518, 519; Hayes v. United States, 10 Cir. 1966, 367 F.2d 216.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pearson v. State, 260 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 1972)…Certiorari denied. 254 So. 2d 573. CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1968)
- Schley v. State, 48 Fla. 53 (Fla. 1904)
- Copeland v. State, 58 Fla. 26 (Fla. 1909)
- Seaboard AIR Line R.R. Co. v. Lake Region Packing Ass'n, 211 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Gibson v. State, 194 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Hiller Arthur Hayes v. United States, 367 F.2d 216 (10th Cir. 1966)
- Mun. Court IN & FOR the City OF Coral Gables v. Giblin, 126 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)