Hall v. State
Citations
- 78 Fla. 420
- 83 So. 513
Syllabus
<p>1. If in the examination of jurors upon their voir dire in a criminal case it appears that a certain juror is unqualified, but the Court refuses to sustain the defendant’s challenge for cause, who afterwards' excuses the juror by a peremptory challenge, the court’s ruling will not be regarded as harmful error.</p> <p>2. The question of the qualification of a venireman is a judicial one and is addressed to the court’s discretion; any alleged error in the Court’s ruling upon a juror’s qualification therefore should be made affirmatively to appear, and that it was harmful to the defendant, to constitute reversible error.</p> <p>3. The admission in evidence of a photograph of a house at which a homicide was Committed and a photograph of the interior of the room in which it wias committed, which photograph showed white spots indicating the places upon the flo'or where the persons fell who were shot, is not erroneous where such photographs do not themselves constitute a picture version or interpretation of the character of the actual occurrence.</p> <p>4 It is not error for the Court in the trial of a criminal cause to admit in evidence the defendant’s voluntary and noncommittal account or statement to the sheriff of the transaction upon which the charge against the defendant rests.</p> <p>5. Where in a prosecution for murder the sanity of the defendant at the time of the alleged crime is a material issue, it is proper to receive in evidence the opinions of non-expert witnesses ,as to the defendant’s mental condition when such opinions are based upon facts, circumstances, transactions in the defendant’s life observed and noted by the witnesses who should detail such facts, circumstances and transactions in their testimony.</p> <p>6. Where non-expert witnesses are offered in behalf of defendant as to his mental condition ¡and such witnesses can recall no facts in the defendant’s life tending t’o show. insanity, but are permitted to express their opinions concerning his
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- It is improper segregate ... any fact from all the material facts sought to be established
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Browne, Ellis, Taylor, West, Whitfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Scott v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 2004-06-10· cited 125×
- McKee v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama· 1949-12-15· cited 70×
- State v. SearcyIdaho Supreme Court· 1990-09-05· cited 64×
- Akin v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1923-12-20· cited 63×
- Leach v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1961-06-16· cited 58×
- Campbell v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1969-06-11· cited 57×
- Grant v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1965-01-08· cited 44×
- State v. RiggleWyoming Supreme Court· 1956-06-05· cited 42×
- Darty v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1964-03-04· cited 38×
- Alston v. ShiverSupreme Court of Florida· 1958-10-17· cited 31×
- Langley v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 1950-01-11· cited 24×
- Hixon v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1964-06-17· cited 22×
- Collins v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1925-01-10· cited 20×
- Hutchins & Co. v. ShermanSupreme Court of Florida· 1921-08-03· cited 14×
- Smithie v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1924-06-13· cited 14×
- Baston v. SheltonSupreme Court of Florida· 1943-05-07· cited 13×
- Cook v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama· 1974-01-29· cited 10×
- State v. MartinezNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1932-08-19· cited 8×
- Leon v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1966-05-10· cited 5×
- Eaton v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1975-01-21· cited 5×
Cites
30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Mathis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-01-15· cited 81×
- Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1902-01-15· cited 68×
- Armstrong v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1892-06-15· cited 59×
- Cook v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-06-15· cited 49×
- Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-01-15· cited 42×
- Colson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1906-01-15· cited 40×
- Pinson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1891-06-15· cited 37×
- Fine v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1915-11-19· cited 35×
- Higginbotham v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1900-06-15· cited 32×
- Denham v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1886-06-15· cited 27×
- Bryant v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1894-06-15· cited 26×
- Peadon v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-06-15· cited 26×
- Ernest v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1883-06-15· cited 25×
- Melbourne v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1906-01-15· cited 25×
- Cochran v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1913-02-04· cited 25×
- McCoggle v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1899-06-15· cited 20×
- Barker v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1898-01-15· cited 19×
- Copeland v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1899-01-15· cited 19×
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. WhitneySupreme Court of Florida· 1913-02-04· cited 19×
- Bass v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1909-06-15· cited 18×
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.