Milligan v. State

Citations

• 75 Fla. 815
• 78 So. 535

Syllabus

<p>1. The fact of a previous difficulty between the witness and the defendant was pertinent evidence as tending to show the attitude of the witness, but the details or particulars of such difficulty were n'ot ladmissible.</p> <p>2. Where testimony has already been brought out by the defendant in a criminal prosecution, even if such testimony is not strictly admissible, the defendant cannot object to its repetition when no harm is shown from the repetition.</p> <p>3. It is not error to refuse requested charges (1) that are in substance Covered by charges given; (2) that have no basis in the evidence under the issue; (3) that are not relevant to the issue being tried, or (4) that are incorrect as propositions of law.</p> <p>4. A judgment of conviction will not be reversed on writ of error even if technical errors were committed in rulings on the admissibility of evidence, or in the charges given or refused or in other matters of procedure, where the 'evidence of guilt is clear and ample and no fundamental rights of the defendant were violated, and it appears from the whole record that such technical errors, if any, were not prejudicial to the defendant.</p>