Hicks v. State

Citations

• 75 Fla. 311
• 78 So. 270

Syllabus

<p>1. A judgment will not be reversed .for harmless errors in rulings on the admissibility of testimony.</p> <p>2. That a person who is wounded by a ball discharged from a pistol makes an outcry at the time such wound is inflicted indicating pain may be testified to by ones'who was present and heard the outcry. Such testimony falls under a well recognized exception to the rule excluding the mere opinion of a non-expert witness.</p> <p>3. Testimony of one who was present at the scene of a shooting at night, that he was looking out through the window of a train on which he was riding the next morning, in passing the place where the shooting occurred, because “he half way expected to see somebody there” is not objectionable and inadmissible on the ground that it states a conclusion 'of the witness.</p> <p>4. For the purpose of establishing the identity of a deceased person, alleged to have been murdered, it is competent for a witness to testify that the deceased was known by or reputed to be of a certain name.</p> <p>5. It is well settled thiat if the defendant wishes to avail himself of the omission of the trial court to more fully charge the jury upon any,point in the ease he should prepare the required instruction and request that it be given.</p> <p>6. It is not error to refuse requested instructions upon a point Covered by instructions already given.</p> <p>7. In a prosecution for murder instructions tha.t have no basis in the transcript of the record will be held by the appellate court to have been properly refused, and especially so when the trial judge has fully instructed the jury in his general charge upon the law of homicide in the different grades and as to the burden of pro'of which rested upon the State.</p>