Witness Competency

316 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Simmons v. State
  683 So. 2d 1101· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-11-26 ·cited 12×
  Appellant Cecil Simmons, Jr. was convicted of murder, sexual battery, and kidnapping based largely on the testimony of James Burney, a mentally retarded witness. On appeal, Simmons challenged the trial court's determination that Burney was competent to testify, its denial of a ps
• Manning Coney v. State
  643 So. 2d 654· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-10-05 ·cited 12×
  Manning Coney was convicted after trial testimony from a child victim presented via closed-circuit television. The appellate court reversed and remanded due to multiple trial errors: insufficient findings of fact for closed-circuit testimony, inadequate attorney-defendant communi
• Lovejoy Elecs., Inc. v. O'Berto
  873 F.2d 1001· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the parol evidence rule does not bar evidence of promissory fraud and that the Illinois dead man's statute, as applied through Federal Rule of Evidence 601, did not bar O'Berto's testimony due to ambiguity in his deposition regarding witness presence.
• Camitsch v. Risley
  705 F.2d 351· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the denial of access to juvenile witness case files did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights, and the application of a narrower state law standard for jury instructions on appeal did not violate due process.
• Kaelin v. State
  410 So. 2d 1355· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-03-03 ·cited 12×
  Robert Kaelin appealed his conviction on five counts of sexual battery, challenging the trial court's admission of testimony from a severely mentally disabled and hearing-impaired victim. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that the victim was com
• Albers v. Dasho
  355 So. 2d 150· Fla. 4th DCA· 1978-02-14 ·cited 12×
  In this negligence case arising from a pedestrian-vehicle collision on a Florida bridge, the appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that a key witness's testimony regarding the vehicle's speed was inadmissible for lack of competency because his observation
• Hawkins v. State
  326 So. 2d 229· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-01-30 ·cited 12×
  Psychiatric testimony regarding a prosecution witness's ability to tell the truth is admissible to attack her credibility.
• United States v. Zeiler
  470 F.2d 717· 3d Cir.· 1972-12-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that pretrial publicity does not disqualify eyewitnesses, and cross-examination is the proper method to test their credibility.
• In re Est. of Richard A. Lynagh v. Marine Bank & Tr. Co.
  177 So. 2d 256· Fla. 2d DCA· 1965-06-30 ·cited 12×
  The court reversed the trial judge's exclusion of witness testimony and held that an estate administrator cannot actively advocate against heirs' claims in a heirship determination proceeding, but must maintain a neutral position as a nominal party to the case.
• Appolonio v. Baxter
  217 F.2d 267· 6th Cir.· 1954-12-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the claimants' evidence was insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the alleged oral contract, particularly due to the Dead Man's Statute and the lack of clear proof.
• Munroe v. Carroll
  80 Fla. 206· Fla.· 1920-07-05 ·cited 12×
  Complainants sought to establish that a 1894 deed was actually a mortgage securing a debt owed to Charles T. Carroll, but the trial court excluded their testimony regarding transactions with the deceased Carroll. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under Section 1505
• Menefee v. State
  59 Fla. 316· Fla.· 1910-01-01 ·cited 12×
  J. W. Menefee was convicted of grand larceny of fertilizer belonging to the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and granted a new trial, primarily due to the erroneous admission of a railroad receipt that was improperly authenticated and relie
• Fabe Robinson v. State
  50 Fla. 115· Fla.· 1905-06-01 ·cited 12×
  Fabe Robinson was indicted for murder in the first degree, tried in Jackson County Circuit Court, and convicted of manslaughter. He appealed by writ of error to the Florida Supreme Court, raising four assignments of error regarding witness qualification, jury instructions on self
• Hays v. Ernest
  32 Fla. 18· Fla.· 1893-06-01 ·cited 12×
  This case addresses the probate of Johann Christian Lehmann's alleged will, which devised real and personal property to Daniel Hays. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' rejection of the will, holding that the trial judge erred in excluding testimony from an inter
• Moss v. OLE S. Real Est., Inc.
  933 F.2d 1300· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-26 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the magistrate abused his discretion in excluding the Air Force report and the testimony of investigators, as the focus should be on reliability, not credibility, and substantial rights were likely affected. However, the second HUD report was properly excluded
• United States v. Odom
  736 F.2d 104· 4th Cir.· 1984-05-22 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the defendants waived their objection to the receipt of unsworn and incompetent testimony by failing to object to the jury instructions.
• Shoemaker v. Powers
  78 Fla. 20· Fla.· 1919-06-24 ·cited 11×
  This appeal concerns whether Margaret F. Powers validly conveyed land to L. Memminger, who immediately reconveyed it to Stephen Powers (Margaret's husband), or whether Margaret retained title and devised the land through her will to her three children including the appellants. Th
• Summerall v. Daniel Thoms and Wife
  3 Fla. 298· Fla.· 1850-01-01 ·cited 11×
  In this 1850 detinue action, the Florida Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment for plaintiffs Thoms in a dispute over ownership of an enslaved woman named Sue. The case involved a parol agreement made during the parties' infancy to partition the offspring of an enslav
• United States v. Haro
  573 F.2d 661· 10th Cir.· 1978-03-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying challenges to jury composition, refusing to set aside a stipulation regarding destructive devices, limiting cross-examination of a key witness, or allowing the witness to invoke the Fifth Amendment. The court affirmed the
• Davis v. State
  348 So. 2d 1228· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-08-02 ·cited 10×
  The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion in finding a five-year-old child competent to testify due to significant evidence of parental influence.
• Carter v. United States
  332 F.2d 728· 8th Cir.· 1964-05-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a witness is competent if they understand the obligation of an oath and can give a rational account of events, and that sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy conviction.
• Evans v. Perry
  161 So. 2d 27· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-01-22 ·cited 10×
  Defendants appealed a jury verdict awarding $52,000 to a minor motorcyclist and $12,300 to his mother in a negligence case involving an automobile collision. The Second District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages, holding that the trial court committ
• Gordon v. State
  119 So. 2d 753· Fla. 2d DCA· 1960-03-25 ·cited 10×
  H. P. Gordon appeals his conviction for conspiracy to commit perjury and subornation of perjury after a retrial following the Florida Supreme Court's reversal of his original conviction. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, rejecting Gordon's challenges regarding jury ins
• Allen v. First Nat. Bank of Atlanta
  169 F.2d 221· 5th Cir.· 1948-07-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that evidence of facts existing at the time of the decedent's death, even if discovered after death, is admissible to determine the deductibility of a charitable bequest, provided the possibility of the bequest being defeated was remote as of the date of death.
• Josiah T. Walls v. Endel
  17 Fla. 478· Fla.· 1880-01-01 ·cited 10×
  Walls brought a forcible entry and unlawful detainer action to recover possession of a house in Gainesville from which the Endels removed his wife while he was in a lunatic asylum. The trial court admitted a deed conveying the property to the Endels and instructed the jury to con
• Meyer v. Muscow B. Fogg
  7 Fla. 292· Fla.· 1857-02-01 ·cited 10×
  In this probate contest, the Florida Supreme Court addressed whether an executor who is not a legatee or devisee under the will can serve as a witness to the will's execution. The court held that an executor's entitlement to commissions for services does not constitute a disquali
• Archibald Patterson and Rebecca his Wife
  4 Fla. 481· Fla.· 1852-07-01 ·cited 10×
  A Florida Supreme Court case addressing whether an executor or administrator can bind an estate by promising to pay a debt barred by the statute of limitations. The court held that executors lack the power to remove the statutory bar through acknowledgment or promise, and affirme
• State v. Townsend
  556 So. 2d 817· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-02-15 ·cited 8×
  The appellate court granted certiorari, finding the trial court erred in denying a hearsay exception for a child victim's statements based on a misstatement of expert testimony regarding the likelihood of severe emotional harm if the child testified.
• Clark v. State
  379 So. 2d 372· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-12-27 ·cited 8×
  Fred Clark was convicted of grand theft of a motor vehicle, armed robbery of Charles Wayne Smith, and attempted first-degree murder. On appeal, Clark challenged the admission of expert testimony from a police hypnotist who facilitated the victim's photographic identification of C
• Hinson v. Hinson
  356 So. 2d 372· Fla. 4th DCA· 1978-03-14 ·cited 8×
  Christopher Hinson, a minor, appealed a jury verdict denying him wrongful death recovery proceeds, arguing he was the biological son of the deceased John Henry Hinson and thus entitled to inherit over Hinson's mother, Ola Mae Davis. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial
• In re Est. of Parris Jerrido
  339 So. 2d 237· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-10-22 ·cited 8×
  Ruth Jerrido appealed orders in consolidated estate administration cases, claiming to be the common-law widow of Parris Jerrido and challenging the trial court's determination that five children of Rebecca Smith were illegitimate children of the deceased entitled to inherit. The
• United States v. Drake K. Taylor
  536 F.2d 1343· 10th Cir.· 1976-07-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit plain error by admitting rebuttal testimony about the appellant's statement, nor did it err in denying a mistrial based on a witness's alleged incompetence due to drug use.
• Sarles v. State
  294 So. 2d 95· Fla. 1st DCA· 1974-05-09 ·cited 8×
  Sarles appealed the revocation of his probation for allegedly committing new felonies while on probation for issuing a worthless check. The court affirmed the revocation, holding that Florida's statutory probation revocation procedures, which require a hearing within ten days but
• United States v. Ashe
  478 F.2d 661· D.C. Cir.· 1973-03-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the insanity verdict and subsequent commitment order, and that the trial court did not err in its conduct of the voir dire, expert testimony on dangerousness, or the standard of proof in the Bolton hearing.
• Clark v. Grimsley
  270 So. 2d 53· Fla. 1st DCA· 1972-12-12 ·cited 8×
  Two daughters challenged the probate of their mother's 1970 will that devised her entire estate to their sister, claiming undue influence. The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of revocation, finding that excluded letters evidencing the testator's state of mind we
• José Benedicto LEBRÓN v. United States
  241 F.2d 885· 1st Cir.· 1957-03-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty and that the trial court committed no error.
• Hiller v. Walter Ray & Co.
  59 Fla. 285· Fla.· 1910-01-01 ·cited 8×
  This case involves a phosphate mining lease dispute where the lessors (Walter Ray & Company) sought to recover minimum annual royalties from the assignee of the original lessees. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the lower court judgment, holding that the lessees had an implied
• Cross v. The Robinson Point Lumber Co.
  55 Fla. 374· Fla.· 1908-01-01 ·cited 8×
  In this ejectment action, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for the Robinson Point Lumber Company against C. T. Cross, holding that Cross failed to establish title or adverse possession to disputed land and was merely a trespasser. The court addressed several evidenti
• Osterback v. McDonough
  549 F. Supp. 2d 1337· M.D. Fla.· 2008-03-25 ·cited 6×
  The court found that while CM staff received adequate training, the occasional failure of some officers to adhere to that training by ignoring bona fide psychological emergencies, when combined with other factors, could rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation.
• In re Forfeiture OF 1998 Ford Pickup v. Cal Henderson
  779 So. 2d 450· Fla. 2d DCA· 2000-10-13 ·cited 6×
  Bobby E. Williams challenges the forfeiture of his 1998 Ford pickup truck based on alleged lewd and lascivious conduct. The court reversed the forfeiture because the trial court's summary judgment rested on affidavits that were legally insufficient under Florida civil procedure r
• Peters v. Whitley
  942 F.2d 937· 5th Cir.· 1991-09-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state trial court did not err in admitting the victim's testimony, nor was the photographic line-up impermissibly suggestive, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• McCAFFERTY v. Leapley
  944 F.2d 445· 8th Cir.· 1991-09-17 ·cited 6×
  The admission of a child victim's out-of-court statements did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights because the statements possessed particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Furthermore, any alleged trial errors were not so prejudicial as to
• State v. Nemeth
  581 So. 2d 627· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-06-07 ·cited 6×
  The State sought certiorari review of a trial court order that granted the defendant's motion in limine to exclude testimony from a key prosecution witness regarding the ownership and timing of stolen property. The appellate court found the exclusion order constituted a departure
• Dunker v. Reichman
  841 F.2d 177· 7th Cir.· 1988-03-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trust agreement, when construed under Illinois law, allowed individual co-trustees to bind the trust, and that the plaintiff's testimony regarding conversations with a deceased co-trustee was admissible.
• Dobbert v. Wainwright
  593 F. Supp. 1418· M.D. Fla.· 1984-09-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state court's findings of fact were presumed correct and supported by the record, and that the petitioner's claims regarding witness testimony reliability and ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit.
• KEY v. State
  430 So. 2d 909· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-02-08 ·cited 6×
  Henry Lee Key appeals his conviction for sexual battery and robbery, challenging the admissibility of the victim's hypnotically refreshed testimony. The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirms the conviction and rejects a blanket exclusion rule for hypnotically enhanced te
• Owens v. State
  349 So. 2d 197· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-07-22 ·cited 6×
  Allen Murphy Owens was convicted of robbery and appealed, contending the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial based on allegedly tainted identification testimony and improperly conducted field identification procedures. The appellate court affirmed the conviction,
• United States v. Van Meerbeke
  548 F.2d 415· 2d Cir.· 1976-12-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the trial judge's silence regarding a witness's drug use was an error, it did not affect the judgment in this specific case.
• Corley v. State
  335 So. 2d 849· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-07-16 ·cited 6×
  This case involves an appeal from a second-degree murder conviction. The appellate court reversed the conviction, finding that the trial court improperly excluded crucial defense testimony regarding fingerprints found at the crime scene.
• United States v. Collins
  478 F.2d 837· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prior trial testimony of a witness, who feigned memory loss to avoid testifying against defendants, was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule and did not violate defendants' confrontation rights.