Skip to main content

Maloy v. State

Citations

  • 52 Fla. 101

Syllabus

<p>1. In a prosecution for homicide testimony tending to show the personal feeling between the accused and the deceased and to disclose a motive for the crime is admissible.</p> <p>2. As a general rule, motions to strike testimony that has been introduced in a prosecution for homicide must be predicated upon some feature of irrelevancy, imcompetency, legal inadmissibility or impertineney in the testimony itself, and testimony should not be stricken on. the ground that it is not sufficient proof of what was intended to be proved by the party introducing it.</p> <p>3. In a prosecution for homicide testimony as to pending litigation between the deceased and the defendant at the time of' the homicide is not rendered inadmissible because “it was not shown that there was any personal feeling or words between them.”</p> <p>4. In the absence of proper objections and exceptions, an , assignment of error that the court erred in the manner of its cross-examination- of the defendant, a witness for himself, can not be considered by the appellate court.</p> <p>5. In a. criminal prosecution a defendant taking the stand as a witness may, as a witness, be impeached.</p> <p>6. In the absence of proper exceptions to the rulings of the court in admitting or rejecting testimony su6h rulings will not be considered when assigned as error in the appellate court.</p> <p>7. Where, in a criminal prosecution, the defendant has testified as a witness, the testimony of other witnesses as to the credibility of the defendant “as a witness in the case being tried” is inadmissible, and should be stricken on motion, since the credibility of the defendant as a witness in the case being tried is a question for the jury to determine. The enquiry should be confined to the general reputation of the defendant for truth and veracity, as affecting his testimony in any and all cases in which he may be a witness.</p> <p>8. In a prosecution for homicide where the testimony shows that the difficulty was precipit

Judges: Cockrell, Hocker, Parkhill, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

27 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.