JOHN LOUIS BESSMAN, 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 trial court's error in sustaining an objection to a cross-examination question was harmless and did not warrant reversal.
Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault. During cross-examination of the victim, the defense asked if a civil suit was pending against the defen…
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 Bench Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant brings for review his conviction for aggravated assault and his sentence to eighteen months in prison. Two points are presented: (1) The evidence is insufficient to establish an intentional assault. (2) The trial court erred in sustaining the state’s objection to a question on cross-examination of a state’s witness. We affirm.
The evidence is clearly sufficient to establish the general intent required. See McCullers v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 206 So. 2d 30. Appellant’s reliance upon the rule applied in Munday v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 254 So.2d 33 is unavailing because no reasonable view of the evidence permits a conclusion other than that appellant intended to assault the victim.
, The second point presents a close question. The trial judge sustained the state’s abjection to the following question upon cross-examination of the victim: “Do you at the present time have a civil suit pending against Mr. Bessman (the defendant-appellant) ?” It appears that the question was proper cross-examination because an affirmative answer would tend to show interest in the outcome of the trial: See Davis v. Ivey, 93 Fla. 387, 112 So. 264 (1927); and Bryan v. State, 41 Fla. 643, 26 So. 1022 (1899).
We are impelled to hold that the error is not reversible but is harmless in view of the fact that this trial was before the lower court without a jury and the trial judge was fully informed of the pendency of the civil action by statements of counsel. The question called for a yes or no answer and the court was not informed that appellant intended to develop the answer in any way. See Harris v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 229 So.2d 670; and People v. Petters, 29 Cal.App.2d 48, 84 P.2d 54 (1938). Cf. Capitoli v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 210.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Webb v. State, 336 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…the outcome of appellant’s criminal trial. It has frequently been held that the existence of a civil suit by a witness against a criminal defendant is relevant to show such potential bias in the criminal trial. See Bessman v. State, Fla.App.3d 1972, 259 So. 2d 776; Annot., 21 A.L.R.2d 1078. We think the situation is not essentially different where, as here, it is the defendant who brought a civil suit prior to being charged with the crime. And, the fact that Carna-han himself was not a party to the civil suit…
-
Wooten v. State, 464 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…eeling ought to be known to the jury.”). See also Villaroman v. United States, 184 F. 2d 261 (D.C.Cir.1950); State v. Whitman, 429 A. 2d 203 (Me.1981); 3A J. Wigmore, Evidence § 949, p. 788 (Chadbourn rev. 1970).2 [*642] Indeed, in Bessman v. State, 259 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), this court found error in the trial court’s refusal to permit the defendant to ask the victim of the aggravated assault whether he had a civil suit pending against the defendant. However, we held the error harmless in view of the…
-
Leamon T. COX v. State, 441 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…as in the criminal trial.” Webb v. State, 336 So. 2d 416, 418 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); see also Lombardi v. State, 358 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Stradtman v. State, 334 So. 2d 100 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), aff’d, 346 So. 2d 67 (Fla.1977); Bessman v. State, 259 So. 2d 776 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). Consequently, it is clear that the trial court erred in restricting cross-examination. The more difficult question is whether the error is harmless. At trial it was undisputed that Mr. Cox shot his wife and, thus, the inquiry foc…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Davis v. Ivey, 93 Fla. 387 (Fla. 1927)
- Paulet v. Hickey, 206 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Gadsden D. Bryan v. State, 41 Fla. 643 (Fla. 1899)
- Capitoli v. State, 175 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Harris v. State, 229 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Pilar Navarro v. Yosemite Ins. Co., 254 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)