BOBBY LEE JONES, 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.
Bobby Lee Jones was convicted of manslaughter after a trial where the State impeached its own witness, a girlfriend who was present during the shooting. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the witness's trial testimony introducing new facts (that the deceased reached for the gun) constituted adverse testimony that justified impeachment under Florida law.
The trial court properly allowed impeachment of the State's witness because the witness went beyond merely failing to provide beneficial testimony and instead gave adverse testimony that contradicted her prior statements. The evidence was sufficient to support the manslaughter conviction.
[1] A party producing a witness may impeach that witness if the witness's testimony is not only unbeneficial but also adverse and prejudicial to the party producing them.
[2] A party cannot impeach its own witness who merely fails to testify as to beneficial facts.
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“A party producing a witness cannot impeach him unless he not only fails to give beneficial testimony but also he must become adverse by giving evidence that is prejudicial to the party producing him. A party cannot impeach his own witness who merely fails to testify as to beneficial facts.”
This establishes the legal standard for when a party may impeach its own witness under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJones shot the deceased while the deceased was standing at a car window. Jones's girlfriend was sitting with him in the car at the time. Prior to tria…
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 Prejudicial Surprise cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was informed against, tried and found guilty of manslaughter. On this appeal he urges error in the trial court because the State was allowed to impeach one of its own witnesses. The witness was a girl friend of the defendant who was sitting with him in the car when he shot the deceased as the deceased was standing at the car window. Our review of the record convinces us that the differences between the witness’ statements prior to trial and the testimony given on the witness stand constituted a sufficient basis for the court’s finding that the State was prejudiced or surprised by the differences in the testimony.
In Gibbs v. State, Fla.App.1967, 193 So.2d 460, Mr. Justice Adkins sitting as an associate judge on the District Court of Appeal, Second District, authored a definitive opinion on the subject of the State’s right to impeach its own witness. In that case it was held that there was no basis for the impeachment inasmuch as the strongest statement that could be made relative to the testimony was that it was not as beneficial to the State as expected. The court, speaking through Judge Adkins, held the impeachment to be error and reversed. In reversing, the court set forth the law applicable to the subject as follows:
* * * * * *
“A party producing a witness cannot impeach him unless he not only fails to give beneficial testimony but also he must become adverse by giving evidence that is prejudicial to the party producing him. A party cannot impeach his own witness who merely fails to testify as to beneficial facts.”
«í» H*
In the present case, the witness injected at trial a situation which her previous statements had completely ruled out. This element was an assertion that the deceased reached for the gun. The trial court properly ruled that the witness had gone beyond the mere failing to give beneficial testimony and had given adverse testimony. No error has been demonstrated. See Gibbs v. State, supra, and Hernandez v. State, 156 Fla. 356, 22 So.2d 781 (1945).
Appellant’s remaining point urging the insufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment has been examined and found to be without merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brumbley v. State, 453 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 1984)…, 34 Fla. 185, 15 So. 905 (1984); McCloud v. State, 354 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. dismissed, 358 So. 2d 132 (Fla.1978); Williams v. State, 353 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Pitts v. State, 333 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Jones v. State, 273 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Gibbs v. State, 193 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). In the present case, after testifying as a witness for the state that he and appellant abducted and robbed Rogers and discussed what to do with him, Smith said that they abandon…
-
Cooper v. State, 360 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…peaching a state’s witness in violation of the witness sequestration rule, we affirm the decision of the trial court on the authority of Bryan v. State, 45 Fla. 8, 34 So. 243 (1903); Romano v. Palazzo, 83 Fla. 243, 91 So. 115 (1922); Jones v. State, 273 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Affirmed in part, reversed in part.…
-
Williams v. State, 353 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…davit that she would stick by her original story, her testimony to the contrary upon being called by the state did constitute surprise justifying impeachment by leading questions. See Bogan v. State, 226 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2 DCA 1969); Jones v. State, 273 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 3 DCA 1973); McCloud v. State, 335 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1976). When witness Leland was called to the stand by the state and the state requested that she be declared a hostile witness because of its surprise at her testimony, defense counsel asked…
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
- Hernandez v. State, 156 Fla. 356 (Fla. 1945)
- Gibbs v. State, 193 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)