GUSTAVE HAROLD WATKINS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Gustave Harold Watkins was convicted of withholding means of support from his minor children. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction, finding that hearsay and irrelevant testimony was improperly admitted at trial and that the evidence did not clearly establish the defendant willfully withheld support he had the ability to provide.
The conviction was reversed because: (1) the trial court improperly permitted hearsay and irrelevant testimony over objection, which was prejudicial to the defendant; (2) the trial court erroneously permitted the present wife to testify on cross-examination regarding matters unrelated to the issues being tried; and (3) the evidence did not clearly show that the defendant withheld from his children any means of support that he had or was able to acquire.
“The evidence does not clearly show that the defendant withheld from his children any means of support that he had or was able to acquire.”
Establishes that the conviction must be supported by clear evidence of the defendant's ability and willful withholding of support.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWatkins was convicted in the Criminal Court of Record for Hillsborough County of the statutory offense of withholding means of support from his minor …
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 Hearsay Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
The plaintiff in error was convicted in the Criminal Court of Record for Hillsborough Co.unty.of the statutory offense of withholding from his minor children; the means of support,- and took writ of ..error. It appears from the hill of exceptions that a motion was made and ..overruled to quash the information on the ground that there is pending in the Circuit Court of Hills-borough County a divorce proceeding in which the defendant here is' defendant, wherein a decree of divorce and for alimony was rendered, and wherein a writ of ne exeat was issued and a bond given. .Even if this may be regarded as a proper motion to' quash the information, it appears only in the bill of exceptions and not in the transcript of the-record proper, therefore it can not be considered here.
Motions to quash indictments and the ruling of the court thereon form part of the record proper in a cause, and have no place in the bill of exceptions, and, when evidenced to an appellate court only by a bill' of exceptions, such court cannot consider assignments of error based upon' the overruling of such motions. Bell v. State, 61 Fla. 6, 54 South. Rep. 799.
The court permitted a witness to give hearsay testimony that the defendant has a month’s pay in his pocket and would not give his former wife any of it, though it appears he did1 make a payment afterwards for alimony. This and other hearsay and irrelevant testiinony was. erroneously permitted to be given over objection, and it was prejudicial to the defendant.
In permitting the present-wife to testify on cross-examination over objections as to matters having no. relation to the issues being tried, there was reversible error. The evidence does not clearly show that the defendant withheld from his children any means of support that he had or was able to acquire. In People v. Schlott, 162 Cal. 347, 122 Pac. Rep. 846, it was found that the defendant wilfully omitted to furnish his child with necessary food, etc., he having the ability to furnish such support.
The judgment is reversed.
Taylor, C. J., and Shackleforu., Cockrell and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hart v. State, 92 Fla. 809 (Fla. 1926)…of place in a bill of exceptions. See Raines v. State, 42 Fla. 141, 28 South. Rep. 57; Olds v. State, 44 Fla. 452, 33 South. Rep. 296; Johnson v. State, 51 Fla. 44, 40 South. Rep. 678; Bell v. State, 61 Fla. 6, 54 South. Rep. 799; Watkins v. State, 69 Fla. 355, 68 South. Rep. 176; Ward v. State, 83 Fla. 311, 91 South. Rep. 189. The sufficiency of the indictment, therefore, as no fun [*811] damental error appears in it, will not be considered. Although the motion to quash is evidenced to this court by the…
-
Farnell v. State, 214 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…the corollary rule that the admission of irrelevant evidence prejudicial to the defendant over his objection is reversible error. Wolf v. State, 1917, 72 Fla. 572, 73 So. 740; Alvarez v. State, 1918, 75 Fla. 286, 78 So. 272; Watkins v. State, 1915, 69 Fla. 355, 68 So. 176. In Hartman v. State, 1935, 121 Fla. 627, 164 So. 354, Judge Terrell wrote the opinion reversing an embezzlement conviction because of admission in evidence of embezzled property other than that for which the defendant was on trial, hol…
-
Jenkins v. State, 177 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…have tended to besmirch the character and demeanor of the defendant, possibly prejudicing the trier of the fact and could only have been introduced for this purpose, said statements being wholly irrelevant to the State s case. See: Watkins v. State, 69 Fla. 355, 68 So. 176; Wolf v. State, 72 Fla. 572, 73 So. 740; Gafford v. State, 79 Fla. 581, 84 So. 602. Therefore, the conviction and final judgment here under review is hereby reversed, and this cause remanded to the trial court for the purpose of a new t…
Authorities Cited
- Bell v. State, 61 Fla. 6 (Fla. 1911)