EUGENE FARRIS WELLS, APPELLANT,
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.
The court held that the prosecution's questions and display of unrelated firearms did not constitute reversible error, and any error was harmless.
The defendant was charged with second-degree murder, found guilty of manslaughter, and appeals. He argued that inflammatory prosecution questions and …
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 Reversible Error cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, Eugene Farris Wells, pled not guilty to a charge of second degree murder. A jury trial was held and defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal at the end of the state’s case. The trial judge denied the motion but reduced the charge to manslaughter. The jury found defendant guilty of manslaughter and he appeals from his adjudication.
He argues that certain questions asked by the prosecution were so inflammatory and suggestive as to require reversal. He cites Prokos v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 209 So.2d 484; and Burkhead v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 690. We do not find that those cases require, or support, a reversal for several reasons. It appears the prosecution asked certain questions of a witness and the defense attorney objected. Before the court could rule on the objection the witness answered the questions. The court then sustained the objection to these questions but would not give an instruction to the jury to disregard the questions or answer. The answer given by the witness was not inflammatory or suggestive but was favorable to the position taken by the defense and did not constitute reversible error.
Finally, defendant contends the state committed reversible error during the trial by displaying certain firearms to the jury which were not connected with defendant and that such display tended to prejudice the jury.
Defendant’s defense in this case was that the shooting was an accident but he admitted the actual shooting of the victim. Assuming arguendo that it was error to display certain firearms to the jury, we hold this was harmless error. See § 924.33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
The final judgment herein appealed is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Causey Harrell v. State, 405 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…rror in displaying unintroduced and incriminating evidence not fundamental error); Connor v. State, 106 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 1958) (no prejudicial error where defendant’s confession contained same evidence as that erroneously exhibited); Wells v. State, 256 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) (no reversible error in display of firearms not admitted into evidence); DeLaine v. State, 230 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970) (no reversible error in display of clothing and bedding which did not connect defendant with scene of cri…
-
O'Berry v. State, 348 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ether she was culpably negligent in proceeding with the aforementioned course of conduct. As such, we conclude that the errors committed were harmless in nature, as they did not injuriously affect the substantial rights of appellant. Wells v. State, 256 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); see also, Ballard v. State, 323 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Accordingly, appellant’s conviction and sentence are hereby affirmed. Affirmed.…
-
Mercado v. State, 412 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1979); compare: O’Berry v. State, 348 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Wells v. State, 256 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burkhead v. State, 206 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Prokos v. State, 209 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)