Skip to main content
· 6/15/1907

Platt v. Rowand

Citations

  • 54 Fla. 237

Syllabus

<p>1. I11 both- civil actions and criminal prosecutions, a motion to strike out the entire testimony of a- witness should be denied if any part thereof is admissible for any purpose. The motion should be confined, specifically to the inadmissible parts of the testimony, otherwise it, will be too, broad.</p> <p>2. Where no objections are Iqterposed-to-questions propounded to a witness and his testimony is admitted without objection, the party so failing to object is not entitled as a matter of right to have the responsive testimony of the witness stricken out on motion, even though it may be irrelevant or incompetent, and open to attack by proper grounds of objection.</p> <p>3. When evidence which may have been irrelevant, or otherwise open to an objection seasonably made, has been admitted without objection, the witness having been examined and cross-examined by the respective parties, it is not error to deny a motion to strike out such evidence made after its tendency and effect have been disclosed.</p> <p>4. A party cannot be permitted to lie by, and experiment upon the testimony by failing to interpose objections thereto at the proper time, and ascertain what might come of it, for benefit or disadvantage, and then, if it turns out to be unpropitious for him, seek to have it excluded altogether on motion.</p> <p>5. Because a cross-examination shakes the credibility, or • demonstrates the inaccuracy and unreliability of the testimony of a witness given by him on his direct examination, it furnishes no reason or ground for striking out such testimony on motion, but, if it is otherwise proper testimony, it remains for the proper consideration of the jury — both the testimony brought out on>the direct examination as well as that elicited on the cross-examination.</p> <p>6. A motion to strike out evidence that has been introduced in a cause must be predicted upon some feature of irrelevancy, incompetency, legal inadmissibility, or impertinency in the evidence itself, a

Judges: Shackleford

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.