Davis v. State
Citations
- 54 Fla. 34
Syllabus
<p>r. Where an indictment for feloniously and burglariously breaking and entering a building contains an allegation that such building was “the store house of the property of one B. F. Pope,” it is a sufficient allegation as to the ownership of the building, and a- motion to quash the indictment on such ground is properly overruled.</p> <p>2. The trial court is. authorized to regulate the or. cr of D e introduction of evidence, and its discretion in this matter will be interfered with by an appellate court only when clearly abused.</p> <p>3. Excluded evidence should be set forth, in order that an appellate court can determine whether or not it was properly excluded. Where the only showing made is that, at the close of the state’s evidence in rebuttal, “thereupon the defendant to further maintain the issues in his behalf, in rebuttal offered himself as a witness,” such offer is so general that an appellate court cannot say that any error was committed by the trial court in the refusal of such offer.</p> <p>4. In a criminal prosecution no error is committed by the trial court in refusing to permit the defendant to testify in rebuttal of the testimony of a state witness when it is clearly made to appear that such excluded evidence, instead of rebutting the testimony of such state witness, tallied with and corroborated it.</p> <p>5. Where a charge or an instruction, as far as it goes, states a correct proposition of law, but is defective because it fails to qualify or explain the proposition it lays down in consonance with the facts of the case, such defect is cured if subsequent instructions are given containing the required qualifications or exceptions. It is not required that a single charge or instruction should contain all the law relating to the particular subject treated therein.</p> <p>6. In determining the correctness of charges and instructions, they should be considered as a whole; and if, as a whole, they are free from error, an assignment prepredicated on i
Judges: Shackleford
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
20 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Lewis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1908-01-15· cited 65×
- Padgett v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1912-06-15· cited 44×
- Escambia County Electric Light & Power Co. v. SutherlandSupreme Court of Florida· 1911-01-15· cited 39×
- Pensacola Electric Co. v. BissettSupreme Court of Florida· 1910-01-15· cited 33×
- Robinson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1915-04-27· cited 31×
- Cross v. AbySupreme Court of Florida· 1908-01-15· cited 30×
- Disney v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1916-12-19· cited 29×
- Tully v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1915-06-03· cited 22×
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. DeesSupreme Court of Florida· 1908-06-15· cited 16×
- Graham v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1916-12-19· cited 16×
- Dicks v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1922-06-12· cited 14×
- Haager v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1922-01-23· cited 12×
- Powers v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1969-06-17· cited 11×
- Mathis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1915-07-13· cited 10×
- Denmark v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1928-04-17· cited 10×
- Stearns & Culver Lumber Co. v. AdamsSupreme Court of Florida· 1908-01-15· cited 9×
- Tyson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1922-01-16· cited 8×
- Blocker v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1924-02-14· cited 6×
- Simpson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1937-03-15· cited 4×
- Edwards v. PoeDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1967-10-06· cited 3×
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.