JAMES COLLINS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of James Collins for first-degree murder in Palm Beach County. The court rejected five grounds for appeal, finding the evidence sufficient, the trial court's evidentiary and instructional rulings proper, and the cross-examination regarding prior convictions appropriate.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding: (1) the evidence was amply sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) and (3) the refusal to give requested self-defense instructions was not error because the legal principles were adequately covered in the trial court's general charge; and (4) and (5) the cross-examination regarding the number of prior convictions was proper and did not violate established precedent.
“evidence when measured by rules enunciated in the cases of Crawford v. State, 146 Fla. 729, 1 So. (2nd) 713; Padgett v. State, 121 Fla. 42, 163 So. 291; Hasty v. State, 120 Fla. 269, 162 So. 910; Davis v. State, 138 Fla. 798, 190 So. 259 and Williams v. State, 148 Fla. 88, 3 So. (2nd) 721, meets all requirements.”
Establishes the sufficient-evidence standard and finding that evidence met it in this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Collins was indicted and convicted in Circuit Court of Palm Beach County for first-degree murder. Collins testified on his own behalf during tri…
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 Self-Defense Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, having been indicted arid convicted in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County for the crime of murder in the first degree, presents his appeal to this Court.
Appellant presents five questions for our consideration as grounds for reversal.
The first question challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment. We have carefully considered the evidence as reflected in the transcript of record and find it amply sufficient to prove the guilt of appellant to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. A statement of the details of the occurrence as shown by the evidence can serve no useful purpose. It is sufficient to say that the evidence when measured by rules enunciated in the cases of Crawford v. State, 146 Fla. 729, 1 So. (2nd) 713; Padgett v. State, 121 Fla. 42, 163 So. 291; Hasty v. State, 120 Fla. 269, 162 So. 910; Davis v. State, 138 Fla. 798, 190 So. 259 and Williams v. State, 148 Fla. 88, 3 So. (2nd) 721, meets all requirements.
The second and third questions challenge the action of the trial court in refusing to give certain requested instructions or charges requested by the defendant touching the law of self-defense. The trial court announced that the giving of such requested charges was refused because the legal principles thereby sought to be included in charges to the jury were covered by the court’s gerieral charge as given. The *143record reflects that this was true and, therefore, the refusal was not error. See Harvey v. State, 129 Fla. 289, 176 So. 439; Jarrell v. State, 135 Fla. 736, 185 So. 873, and White v. State, 129 Fla. 885, 176 So. 842.
The fourth and fifth questions challenge the propriety of the cross-examination of defendant by the States Attorney (when the defendant was testifying on the trial as a witness in his own behalf) as to former convictions of defendant. From careful consideration of the record, we do not find that the course pursued by the States Attorney offends against the enunciations by us in the case of Washington v. State, 86 Fla. 519, 98 So. 603, or in Martin v. State, 86 Fla. 616, 98 So. 827. In the case before us the State’s Attorney did not seek to have the witness state the facts or circumstances of any offense of which he had been convicted; neither did he attempt to show that defendant had been convicted of any offense involving personal violence. The examination sought to elicit information as to the number of times, if any, the witness has been convicted. The defendant requested no charge by the trial court in regard to the effect, if any, to be given such evidence and, therefore, cannot be heard to complain that no special charge was given as to this.
On the entire record no reversible error is made to appear and, therefore, judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.-
TERRELL, ADAMS, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
BROWN and CHAPMAN, JJ., concur specially.
concurring specially:
We think the State attorney, in his questions to defendant as to his former convictions for crime, went beyond the scope of examination on that subject allowable under the statute, 90.08 Fla. Statutes 1941,. F.S.A. as-construed in the cases cited in the above opinion and also in the case of Wilson v. State, 134 Fla. 199, 183 So. 748, but we are not convinced that any prejudicial error was committed in this particular care. In other respects we concur in the opinion and in the judgment of affirmance.
BROWN and CHAPMAN, JJ.,
concurring specially:
We think the State attorney, in his questions to defendant as to his former convictions for crime, went beyond the scope of examination on that subject allowable under the statute, 90.08 Fla. Statutes 1941,. F.S.A. as-construed in the cases cited in the above opinion and also in the case of Wilson v. State, 134 Fla. 199, 183 So. 748, but we are not convinced that any prejudicial error was committed in this particular care. In other respects we concur in the opinion and in the judgment of affirmance.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McARTHUR v. Cook, 99 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1957)…the use of this type of interrogation to reflect adversely on the credibility of a witness have been well illustrated by other cases. It would be repetitious to elaborate on this phase of the matter here. See Mead v. State, supra; Collins v. State, 155 Fla. 141, 19 So. 2d 718; Wilson v. State, 134 Fla. 199, 183 So. 748; Robinson v. State, 80 Fla. 736, 87 So. 61. See also 58 Am.Jur., Witnesses, Sec. 734, et seq. It is further contended by appellee that if error was committed by the trial judge in striking…
-
Lockwood v. State, 107 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)…g a case directly on point, indicates that ,a prosecutor may, after getting defendant to admit at least one prior conviction, ask how many times defendant has been convicted. Watts v. State, 1948, 160 Fla. 268, 34 So. 2d 429; Collins v. State, 1944, 155 Fla. 141, 19 So. 2d 718. One incident occurred during State’s presentation under Section 90.08, supra, that warrants comment if only to emphasize the care which must be exercised to comply with the rules above stated. [*773] After State had properly present…
-
Johnson v. State, 380 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1979)…of this type of interrogation to reflect adversely on the credibility of a witness have been well illustrated by other cases. It would be repetitious to elab [*1026] orate on this phase of the matter here. See Mead v. State, supra; Collins v. State, 155 Fla. 141, 19 So. 2d 718; Wilson v. State, 134 Fla. 199, 183 So. 748; Robinson v. State, 80 Fla. 736, 87 So. 61. See also 58 Am.Jur., Witnesses, Sec. 734, et seq. 99 So. 2d at 567. A criminal defendant is privileged to testify in his own behalf or to refuse…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Jarrell v. State, 135 Fla. 736 (Fla. 1939)
- Martin v. State, 86 Fla. 616 (Fla. 1924)
- Wilson v. State, 134 Fla. 199 (Fla. 1938)
- Abe Washington v. State, 86 Fla. 519 (Fla. 1923)
- White v. State, 129 Fla. 885 (Fla. 1937)
- Harvey v. State, 129 Fla. 289 (Fla. 1937)
- Jecy Crawford v. State, 146 Fla. 729 (Fla. 1941)
- Davis v. State, 138 Fla. 798 (Fla. 1939)
- Padgett v. State, 121 Fla. 42 (Fla. 1935)
- Williams v. State, 148 Fla. 87 (Fla. 1941)