Skip to main content

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 CourtListener

Cited by

26 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.