Brown v. State

Citations

• 46 Fla. 159

Syllabus

<p>1. A defendant’s witness in a criminal case may be cross-examined by the State Attorney in regard to matters about which he has been examined in chief, in order to discover whether the witness had not made a different statement to other persons in regard to such matters.</p> <p>3. The general rule is that specific objections to testimony not made in the trial court are not considered in an appellate court.</p> <p>3. In order to lay the foundation for the impeachment of a witness, by proving that he had made statements to others in regard to matters testified to by him different from those given by him in his testimony, the time and place of such alleged different statements, as well as the person or persons to whom made, should be stated to the witness, but the rule' does not require perfect precision as to either. The predicate for such impeaching testimony is sufficiently laid when the time, place and person are so stated to the witness that he can not be taken by surprise, and ample opportunity is afforded him to refresh his memory and make intelligent answers, and to offer such explanations as he may desire.</p> <p>4. Where a judge has charged a jury fully upon the subject of reasonable doubt, it is not erroneous for him to refuse an instruction asked for by the defendant in the following words: “The defendant is not required by law to prove her innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, and if you find that she is probably innocent, or if you believe there is a probability of her innocence, you will find her not guilty,” because the last instruction is embraced in the charge so given by the judge.</p> <p>5. Where all the evidence in a criminal case is not contained in the bill of exceptions, and that which it does contain does not show the relevancy of a requested and refused instruction, this court can not say that the judge erred in not giving such refused instruction.</p>