Armstrong v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Armstrong v. State

243 So. 2d 181

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 20, 1971

DocketNo. 70-100

StatusPublished

This text of 243 So. 2d 181 (Armstrong v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armstrong v. State, 243 So. 2d 181 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

LILES, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant was charged with second degree murder. He was tried by jury and found guilty of manslaughter. He was subsequently adjudicated to be guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to a term of ten years in state prison. He appeals the judgment and assigns as error the court’s refusal to allow evidence of the violent and dangerous character of the deceased to be presented to the jury.

According to the record the only relevant evidence the judge refused to allow was the details of how the appellant had been previously shot. He allowed the appellant to testify that he had been shot in the arm and that his arm was paralyzed as a result of the shooting. What he did not allow, and properly so, were the details of the prior shooting of the defendant. This question has been answered many times by the courts of Florida beginning with Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113, 9 So. 835 (1891); Cole v. State, Fla.App.1966, 193 So.2d 47; Coker v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 648.

It is this court’s opinion that the trial judge went further in allowing the conduct of the deceased to be put into evidence than Garner, Cole and Coker would require. For this reason the judgment and sentence is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LILES, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant was charged with second degree murder. He was tried by jury and found guilty of manslaughter. He was subsequently adjudicated to be guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to a term of ten years in state prison. He appeals the judgment and assigns as error the court’s refusal to allow evidence of the violent and dangerous character of the deceased to be presented to the jury.

According to the record the only relevant evidence the judge refused to allow was the details of how the appellant had been previously shot. He allowed the appellant to testify that he had been shot in the arm and that his arm was paralyzed as a result of the shooting. What he did not allow, and properly so, were the details of the prior shooting of the defendant. This question has been answered many times by the courts of Florida beginning with Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113, 9 So. 835 (1891); Cole v. State, Fla.App.1966, 193 So.2d 47; Coker v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 648.

It is this court’s opinion that the trial judge went further in allowing the conduct of the deceased to be put into evidence than Garner, Cole and Coker would require. For this reason the judgment and sentence is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 So. 2d 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-state-fladistctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack