Skip to main content

Cook v. State

Citations

  • 46 Fla. 20

Syllabus

<p>1. The defendant propounded the following question to a witness: “While you and Brooks and Cook were on the railroad track, what remark did Cook make in regard to protecting our citizens?” This was objected to by the State Attorney, and the objection sustained, but the court stated the witness could be asked what was said in the conversation; and defendant’s attorney then asked the witness to state the whole conversation, which the witness proceeded to do. Even if the question was permissible, the court committed no reversible error.</p> <p>2. When the defense is that the defendant was so much intoxicated as to be unable to premeditate the killing, and a conversation with him is brought out by his attorney from his own witness as to his condition while walking on a railroad track at night, a short time before the killing, and also a statement that he staggered, the witness may be asked on cross-examination what was the condition of the track, whether any man was not likely to make a misstep, and whether persons other than the defendant stumble there sometimes.</p> <p>3. Where a witness produced by a party to prove his good reputation testifies that he knows such reputation, and that it is good, he may be asked on cross-examination, for the purpose of testing his credibility, if he had not heard that the party had been guilty of specific acts of bad conduct pertinent to such general reputation; but the witness can not be interrrogated as to his knowledge of such specific acts, nor can his testimony as to what he may have heard respecting specific acts be considered for any other purpose than as affecting his credibility.</p> <p>4. Where a defendant in a prosecution for murder puts his reputation and general character in evidence, and does not limit the evidence to testimony as to his being a quiet and peaceable man, the State on cross-examination, over the objection of defendant, asked the witness testifying to general, good character, if he had not heard that the

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • considering instruction on jury’s ability to recommend the defendant to the mercy of the court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Carter, Cockreeu, Hockrr, Maxwere, Shackleford, Taylor

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.