Nickles v. State
Citations
- 48 Fla. 46
Syllabus
<p>Criminal Law — Opinion Evidence — Identification of Letter— Form op Verdict in Assault With Intent to Commit Murder — Repetition op Charges.</p> <p>1. The fact of the finding of empty gun shells, and gun waddipg on the scene of a shooting affray the next day after such affray, is not inadmissible as evidence on the ground of remoteness, if such fact tends to corroborate the case made by the prosecution or defense.</p> <p>2. A witness who testified to having heard the report of the gun fired in an affray, and who testified to having seen another witness ten or fifteen minutes before the firing of the gun going away from the scene of the affray after water to a well, that such witness testified was about three-eighths of a mile away from the scene of the shooting, will not be allowed to state whether such water-carrying witness had time to get back to the scene of the affray before such shooting, on the ground that such evidence' would be merely the expression of the witness’ opinion, which the jury could arrive at as well as such witness from the data given. (Carter, J., dissenting.)</p> <p>3. A witness in reply to cross-interrogatories, admitted having written and mailed a letter purporting to have been signed by himself, at a certain post-office addressed to the State Attorney about a certain date, and also admitted having written in such letter material parts of its contents that were quoted to him verbatim. The State Attorney also testified to having received by due course of mail the letter purporting to have been written by such witness at about the date of its mailing, and exhibited the envelope in which it was received, which showed by its post-mark that it had been mailed at the post-office named by the witness; the State Attorney also testifying that such was the only letter he had ever at any time received from such witness. Held, that under these circumstances such letter was, without being exhibited to the witness, sufficiently identified as having be
Judges: Carter, Hocker, Taylor
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.