Skip to main content

Mitchell v. State

Citations

  • 43 Fla. 584

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Opinion evidence — Grounds of objections to evidence must be stated — Argument of counsel — Harmless error —Newly discovered evidence as ground for new trial.</p> <p>1. The physical or mental condition or appearance of a person, or his manner, habit or conduct, may be proved by the opinion of an ordinary witness, founded on observation.</p> <p>2. General objections to questions addressed to witnesses, without stating the precise ground of objection, are vague and nugtory, and are without weight before an appellate court.</p> <p>8. It is not reversible error for the court to refuse to interfere with the argument of counsel because it is illogical, or not based on deductions reasonably inferrable from the facts.</p> <p>4. If from the verdict returned it is clear that a charge given did not influence the jury in arriving at it, and if from the standpoint of the verdict actually found such charge was favorble to the defendant, he cannot complain of it on writ of error, even though it may have been erroneous.</p> <p>5. Applications for new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence are looked upon with distrust and disfavor, and are granted only under the following restrictions: (1) The evidence must have been discovered since the former trial. (2) The party must have used due diligence to discover and procure it on the former trial. -(3) It must be material to the issue. (4) It must go to the merits'of the cause, and not merely to impeach the character of a witness. (5) It must not be merely cumulative. (6) It must be such as ought to produce on another trial an opposite result on the merits. The party applying must make his vigilance apparent, for if it is left even doubtful that he knew of the evidence, or that he might, but for negligence, have known of and produced it, he will not succeed in his application. It is no sufficient proof- of diligence in this respect merely to assert in the affidavit that the defendants have used every endeavor

Judges: Taylor

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.