Minor v. State

Citations

• 55 Fla. 77

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence on the part of the State tending to show that the accused by compulsion procured one of the State witnesses to sign an alleged affidavit for the purpose of suppressing evidence against himself, is competent; and the testimony of the notary public who signed the alleged affidavit is competent to show that the State witness did appear before him and did not sign the alleged affidavit in his presence and that the same was written and signed by the notary in the absence of the witness, and taken in that condition from the notary’s office.</p> <p>2. A certain box or case was offered in evidence by the State, for the purpose of connecting the accused with the alleged larency, and a State witness, in order to identify the box, was asked this question: “Does it look like it?” The witness answered, “yes, to the best of my knowledge, it is the case that I received at the time.” Held, that this answer of the witness was competent testimony, its value being a question for the jury.</p> <p>3. Instructions requested by the accused which treat the evidence on the part of the State as circumstantial alone, are properly refused, when portions of the State’s testimony are of a positive character.</p> <p>4. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict.</p>