Alford v. State
Citations
- 47 Fla. 1
Syllabus
<p>1. Whether testimony as to the character of a witness for truth and veracity is, or is not too remote to be competent evidence is to be determined by the trial judge in the exercise of a reasonable discretion.</p> <p>2. Where a witness for the State was of somewhat nomadic habits of life, and the defendant introduced witnesses to show the bad reputation of the State witness for truth and veracity, and the defendant’s witnesses show a reasonable acquaintance with the reputation of such State witness for a number of years before and up to the time of the trial by having lived a part of the time in the vicinity of such State witness, and having visited other neighborhoods in which he has lived, and there heard his reputation for truth and veracity discussed by persons living in such neighborhoods, such impeaching, testimony on the part of the defendant, is competent.</p> <p>3. Before a defendant can introduce testimony to impeach a State witness, by showing that such witness had made statements inconsistent with or contradictory of his testimony, a proper predicate for such impeaching testimony must be laid; but where the purpose is to show the animus of a State witness towards a defendant, — that is to say, the bias or hostility of such State witness, his interest in the cause or his motives,— it is not essential that a predicate should be laid, in order that testimony may be introduced as to such bias, hostility, interest or motives.</p> <p>4. Where a State witness shows that he had had a reasonable opportunity to become acquainted with the tracks, or footprints of the defendant, it is competent for such witness to testify that in his opinion certain tracks or footprints which he saw near the scene of the alleged crime immediately after it occurred, were those of the defendant, because the matter of such testimony can not otherwise be reproduced or made palpable to the jury.</p> <p>5. The opinion of a State witness that a person seen by her near the scene of the c
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “Questions touching interest, motives, animus, or the status of witnesses to the suit, or parties to it are not collateral or immaterial.... [A]nd it is not within the discretion of the court to exclude [such evidence].”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Hocker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
26 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Cooper v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1976-07-08· cited 161×
- Pittman v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1906-01-15· cited 58×
- Irvin v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1953-06-23· cited 40×
- Kersey v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1917-04-05· cited 32×
- Hunt v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad CompanySupreme Court of Florida· 1976-01-14· cited 23×
- Peel v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1963-05-22· cited 22×
- Jones v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1996-08-21· cited 22×
- Love v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 2008-01-09· cited 18×
- Carter v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1986-04-16· cited 14×
- Purcell v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1999-06-23· cited 13×
- Pettie v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1989-07-07· cited 11×
- Hicks v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1918-02-26· cited 7×
- White v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1979-10-10· cited 6×
- Minor v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1908-01-15· cited 6×
- Pitts v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1975-07-02· cited 5×
- Tobin v. LelandDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 2001-10-03· cited 5×
- Vaughn v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1906-06-15· cited 5×
- Johnson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1908-01-15· cited 5×
- Musson v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 2016-01-22· cited 3×
- State v. ForeNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1933-02-27· cited 3×
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Roberson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1898-06-15· cited 83×
- Hoodless v. JerniganSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-06-15· cited 82×
- Harris v. Central RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia· 1887-03-12· cited 65×
- Eggart v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1898-06-15· cited 52×
- Cook v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-06-15· cited 49×
- Eldridge v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1891-01-15· cited 35×
- Bryan v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1899-06-15· cited 33×
- Selph v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1886-06-15· cited 31×
- Stewart v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1900-06-15· cited 21×
- Long v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1900-06-15· cited 16×
- Hill v. NorthSupreme Court of Vermont· 1861-11-15· cited 14×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.