JOHNNIE LEE HAMPTON, 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.
Johnnie Lee Hampton was convicted of rape based on clear and positive evidence and identification by the victim. The court affirmed his conviction despite his argument that admission of a jailhouse letter in which he attempted to suborn perjury constituted harmful error requiring reversal.
The admission of the letter was proper as an admission by the defendant against his own interest and did not constitute reversible error. The letter was lawfully obtained and admissible as evidence.
[1] A letter written by a defendant in jail, containing admissions against interest, is admissible evidence in a criminal trial.
[2] The admission of a defendant's letter into evidence is proper when there is no showing that the letter was acquired in an unlawful manner.
Previewing 2 of 2 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 commission thereof and the identification of the appellant as one of three men by whom the offense was perpetrated were shown by clear and positive evidence”
Establishes the strength of evidence supporting the rape conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHampton was convicted of rape committed by three men. The victim clearly and positively identified Hampton as one of the perpetrators. While in jail a…
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.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was convicted of the crime of rape. The commission thereof and the identification of the appellant as one of three men by whom the offense was perpetrated were shown by clear and positive evidence'. In addition thereto, in course of the jury trial, the state introduced into evidence, over objection of the appellant-defendant, a letter (proved to have been written by him in jail) addressed to another person held in the jail. The contents of the letter were as follows:
“Hey man, remember what I was telling you about Bubble gum, Jap and Nut. Don’t say nothing about it, okay? Because it will be bad for me, if anybody come over and interview or ask you any questions, don’t answer them, unless you say that Witchard told you that him and Jap and Nut did it, okay? That’s exactly what you have to say only to Mrs. Milliage, and she will get me out of here, in two weeks, man, no question about it. “So you tell Mrs. Millage that you were in the yard about two or three weeks ago, and you don’t remember exactly how long ago he told you that I didn’t do the rape and they got me in here for nothing.
“Him, Jap and Nut did it, but you don’t have to give any names besides Witchard. You can say that he told you that I didn’t to it. Him and two more dudes did it, and I am in here for nothing.
“That’s all you have to say, okay ? And you don’t have to worry just talk to Millage and it will free me automatically-
“And, Jack, I am going to have some money after this is over with. Other words, rich. Can you dig it ?
“And, whatever you need, after I get out you will have it man, because I will have it to give you now, and plenty of it.
“So, I am depending on you and when I get out, and don’t let nobody else know about this. I mean, no one, because its not going to affect anyone, all it be is me getting out by you talking to Mrs. Millage, and I will take care of you, Jack, I swear, so believe what I say.”
We hold to be without merit the appellant’s contention that introduction of the letter was harmful error, such as to require reversal of the judgment. While it was not disclosed how the letter came into possession of the state attorney, there was no showing that it was acquired other than in a lawful manner. Admission of the letter into evidence was proper as an admission of the defendant against interest. See Cortes v. State, 135 Fla. 589, 185 So. 323. The case of State v. Kircheis, Fla.App. 1972, 269 So. 2d 16, cited and relied on by the appellant, is distinguishable on the facts.
No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Egar Gonzalez, 467 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ndant, a necessary precondition to a successful assertion of the Florida privilege against self-incrimination in these circumstances. See State v. Gibson, 362 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 1979); Hampton v. State, 308 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 317 So. 2d 78 (Fla.1975); Kircheis v. State, 269 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).…
-
Hampton v. State, 924 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…record does not conclusively refute the claim of defen [*35] dant-appellant Hampton, we remand for further proceedings. The defendant was convicted of a sexual battery committed in 1973. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. See Hampton v. State, 308 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). He remains incarcerated on a 75-year sentence. The defendant filed a motion for post-conviction DNA testing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant has appealed. The t…
-
Hampton v. State, 317 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1975)…Certiorari denied. 308 So. 2d 560. ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, OVERTON and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.…
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
- Cortes v. State, 135 Fla. 589 (Fla. 1938)
- State v. Kircheis, 269 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)