Skip to main content

Herndon v. State

Citations

  • 73 Fla. 451
  • 74 So. 511

Syllabus

<p>1. In passing upon an assignment questioning the correctness of the ruling of the trial court in denying a motion for new trial which is based upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, the guiding principle for an appellate court is not what it may think the jury ought to have done or what such court may think it would have done had it been sitting as a jury in the case, but whether as reasonable men the jury could have found such verdict. If this question can be answered in the affirmative, the action of the trial court upon such motion should not be disturbed.</p> <p>2. While the legal effect of evidence is a question of law to be passed upon by the court when properly presented, the credibility and probative force of conflicting testimony are for the determination of the jury.</p> <p>3. The answer of a witness on cross-examination respecting any fact irrelevant to the issue will be conclusive, and no questions relating to facts irrelevant to the issue can be put on cross-examination merely for the purpose of impeaching the credit of the witness by contradicting him.</p> <p>4. In a prosecution for murder, objections'interposed to questions propounded on the direct examination of a witness are properly sustained, when such questions seek-to elicit information from the witness as to the distance between the defendant and the deceased when the fatal encounter took place and as to how far from the deceased a certain designated track was, and it has been made to appear from the examination of such witness that he was not present at the tragedy, but had visited the place thereof after it had occurred and saw tracks there, and that all the information which the witness possessed as- to the distance between the defendant and the deceased at the time of the shooting and as to the identity of the tracks which the witness saw was derived from statements made to the witness by the defendant and others. Browne, C. J. and Taylor, J., dissent.</p> <p>5. App

Judges: Browne, Shackleford

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

18 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

31 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.