KATIE MAE KITCHEN, ALIAS KATIE MAE GREEN, 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.
Katie Mae Kitchen appeals her conviction for second-degree murder, challenging the trial court's denial of her continuance motion and the admission of a photograph of the victim's stab wound. The Florida Supreme Court affirms, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance and that the photograph was properly admitted as relevant evidence.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance motion because the absent witness's deposition testimony, which showed he was not an eyewitness, would not have materially affected the verdict. The photograph of the stab wound was properly admitted as relevant evidence because it tended to impeach Kitchen's self-defense claim by showing a neat and skillful wound inconsistent with the circumstances she described.
“It is elementary that an application for a continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.”
Establishes the standard of review: continuance denials are reviewed for abuse of discretion, a deferential standard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKitchen was charged with murder in the second degree. Before trial, she moved for a nearly five-month continuance, claiming a material eyewitness was …
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 Admissibility Of Photographs cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Justice.
Defendant here appeals from judgment entered consequent upon a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree.
Before trial, appellant moved for a continuance of nearly five months, upon the ground that a material eyewitness was absent from the state. It was stipulated, however, that this alleged eyewitness, if he were present at the trial, would make the same answers which he had given upon a deposition which had been taken. These answers revealed that he was not in fact an eyewitness to the crime.
It is elementary that an application for a continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Johns v. State, 157 Fla. 18, 24 So. 2d 708; Aeree v. State, 153 Fla. 561, 15 So. 2d 262; Samuels v. State, 123 Fla. 280, 166 So. 743; Adams v. State, 56 Fla. 1, 48 So. 219; and Clinton v. State, 53 Fla. 98, 43 So. 312.
Reviewing the deposition of the absent witness, which was read to the jury, with the other testimony of record in the case, it is evident that the testimony this witness would have been able to give in person would not materially have affected the result. The trial court will therefore not be held to have abused its discretion in denying the motion for continuance. Samuels v. State, supra, 166 So. 743, 744.
The final contention of appellant is that the trial court erred in admitting certain photographs in evidence. Two of the photographs depict the scene of the crime and their relevancy and lack of inflammatory character render it unnecessary to discuss them further. The third photograph, however, is a picture of the body of the decedent taken at a funeral parlor, clearly showing the stab wound from which she died. It is our opinion that this photograph is not inflammatory in character, and could not adversely have affected the jury, but in any cáse it appears to be relevant to one of the issues involved herein. It shows a neat and skillful stab wound inflicted directly over the heart of decedent. Appellant had pleaded self-defense, and testified that the decedent had assaulted her, hitting her with a hammer, whereupon she struck decedent with a knife while running out of the room, and this act was in self-defense and with no intent to kill. The character and location of the wounds, clearly shown by the disputed photograph, tend to impeach appellant’s version of the affray. While possible, it is improbable that the wound shown could have been inflicted under the circumstances which appellant’s testimony described.
Where a photograph is otherwise properly admitted, it is not a valid objection that it tends to prejudice the jury, Mardorff v. State, 143 Fla. 64, 196 So. 625.
Affirmed.
. DREW, C. . J., , and TERRELL and •TIIORNAL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Leach v. State, 132 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1961)…of the extremely gruesome and inflammatory character of the photograph which served no purpose at all, other than to influence unduly the jury’s reactions to the evidence. Between the two decisions above mentioned we decided Kitchen v. State, Fla., 89 So. 2d 667. We there affirmed a conviction which involved the admissibility of certain allegedly objectionable photographs. Two of them depicted the scene of the crime and were obviously relevant for this purpose. The third picture of the body of the decedent…
-
Raulerson v. State, 102 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1958)…r before a denial of a motion for continuance is overturned by this court. Acree v. State, 153 Fla. 561, 15 So. 2d 262. It is “elementary” that a motion for continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Kitchen v. State, Fla., 89 So. 2d 667; Sec. 916.02(2), Florida Statutes 1955, and F.S.A. Before leaving this subject we must, however, express disagreement with the State’s position that the chastity of a prosecuting witness “is completely irrelevant to the charged crime * * This may n…
-
Garmise v. State, 311 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…points raised by the defendant are without merit. Therefore, no reversible error having been shown, the conviction and sentence appealed are hereby affirmed. . See Pressley v. State, Fla.App.1972, 261 So. 2d 522, citing Kitchen v. State, Fla.1956, 89 So. 2d 667 and Grant v. State, Fla.1965, 171 So. 2d 361.…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Buck Clinton and Edward Clinton v. State, 53 Fla. 98 (Fla. 1907)
- Mardorff v. State, 143 Fla. 64 (Fla. 1940)
- Acree v. State, 153 Fla. 561 (Fla. 1943)
- January Adams v. State, 56 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1908)
- Samuels v. State, 123 Fla. 280 (Fla. 1936)
- Ira C. Johns v. State, 157 Fla. 18 (Fla. 1946)