PINKEY SLOAN, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a manslaughter conviction due to two substantial errors during the trial. The court found that the prosecution improperly questioned its own witness and that the trial court mischaracterized the homicide as unlawful in its instructions to the jury.
Yes, the trial court erred in both respects. The prosecution failed to establish the necessary predicate for impeaching its own witness, and the court's instruction improperly characterized the homicide as unlawful, which was a central issue for the jury to decide.
“The State was permitted over objections to ask its own witness, if on a former hearing he had not testified that Pinkey had it in for the deceased.”
Establishes the first evidentiary error concerning the prosecution's questioning of its own witness.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePinkey Sloan was convicted of manslaughter. During the trial, the State was permitted to ask its own witness if he had previously testified that the 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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Impeachment Of Own Witness cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
Sloan was convicted of manslaughter, and, takes writ of error. We find two substantial errors committed on the trial of this case.
The State was permitted over objections to ask its own witness, if on a former hearing he had not testified that Pinkey had it in for the deceased. The witness had testified negatively that he knew of no trouble existing between the accused and the deceased, and the State did not bring itself within the rule, as laid down in Adams v. State, 34 Fla. 185, 15 South. Rep. 905, for the impeachment of its own witness. The evidence was not admitted for the purpose of refreshing the memory of the witness, conceding the question elicited competent testimony, seeing that all that was adduced was the fact that the witness had on a former trial given certain testimony, and it was not even attempted to prove on this trial the truth or falsity of that testimony. It was neither a predicate for impeachment nor direct evidence, and should not have been admitted.
Other evidence of a similar character was admitted that was also objectionable, but it may well be doubted if it had any material influence upon the verdict.
The homicide was admitted and the sole question for the jury was the question of its lawfulness under the circumstances. The court therefore erred in its thirteenth instruction in the characterization of the homicide as unlawful. The use of the adjective unlawful, may have been an oversight, but such oversights should not occur. This case is readily distinguished from Presley v. State, 63 Fla. 37, 57 South. Rep. 605. There the court characterized the act committed as an “offense,” and no error was found; but the question there presented was whether the accused committed the act, and the instruction did not therefore intimate that the court thought the accused guilty of the crime charged.
For these errors the judgment is reversed.
Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur. Taylor, C. J., absent on account of illness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hernandez v. State, 156 Fla. 356 (Fla. 1945)…tatements testified to have been made on other occasions.” The above case was followed, and to some extent enlarged upon, in Sylvester v. State, 46 Fla. 166, 35 So. 142. It was also followed in Bryan v. State, 45 Fla. 8, 34 So. 243; Sloan v. State, 70 Fla. 216, 70 So. 23; and in Rowe v. State, 128 Fla. 394, 174 So. 820. In the last case cited, the Adams case was adhered to, but it was held that it is permissible, for the purpose of refreshing the recollection of a reluctant or evasive witness, to direct h…
-
Rowe v. State, 128 Fla. 394 (Fla. 1937)…cord of his testimony as a whole, a reluctant and unwilling witness. At least the record lays the basis for this inference and such was probably the inference drawn by the trial court. Plaintiff in error also relies upon the case of Sloan v. State, 70 Fla. 216, 70 So. 23. That case dealt with an attempt on the part of the State to impeach its own witness by reading excerpts from his testimony on a former hearing. Such is the statement in the first headnote. In the opinion this subject was dealt with in th…
Authorities Cited
- Adams v. State, 34 Fla. 185 (Fla. 1894)
- Presley v. State, 63 Fla. 37 (Fla. 1912)