Clinton v. State

Citations

• 56 Fla. 57

Syllabus

<p>1. On a trial for arson a threat by the accused to “get even” with the attorney for the owner of the dwelling burned is not admissible when it is clearly shown that the threat was directed against the attorney personally and not 'the client.</p> <p>2. To characterize a conversation as “secret” is not the giving of an expert opinion.</p> <p>3. After the State has adduced testimony that the accttsed had committed the crime of arson and of hostility upon the part of the accused, it was not error 'to permit the owner of 'the dwelling, burned to testify that he 'knew of no others hostile to him.</p> <p>4. The defense having brought out 'the fact that there had been -no association between his faimlily arid a witness for years, the State may show why that association 'had ceased.</p> <p>5. Upon a trial for arson it is mot permissible to ask a witness for the purpose of impeaching his; character if he had ever “fished with nets,” knowing that it was a violation of ithe fish laws.</p> <p>6. The statute forbidding the State to comment upon the failure of the accused (to testify does not deny its preexisting right to characterize testimony as uncontradicted and undenied, even though the testimony is as to private . conversations .between the witness and the accused.</p>