Hampton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hampton v. State

542 So. 2d 458, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1091, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2306, 1989 WL 43312

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 3, 1989

DocketNo. 88-2441

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 542 So. 2d 458 (Hampton 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

Hampton v. State, 542 So. 2d 458, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1091, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2306, 1989 WL 43312 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

POLEN, Judge.

This appeal from a judgment and conviction for manslaughter deals primarily with the admissibility of medical testimony that the treatment, or lack thereof, received by the decedent in the hospital rose to a level of culpable negligence. The law appears well settled that where the wound inflicted by the assailant is dangerous to life, mere erroneous treatment of it would not afford the defendant protection against a charge of unlawful homicide. Johnson v. State, 64 Fla. 321, 59 So. 894 (1912); Tunsil v. State, 338 So.2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Adams v. State, 310 So.2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).

However, in this case the state was permitted, over objection, to question the medical examiner extensively on whether the care or lack of care received by the decedent had any bearing on his death some eight days after admission to the hospital. This was clearly made a major feature of the case by the prosecution. The defense sought to present contradictory testimony from a neurologist, Dr. Cohen, but the court sustained the state’s objection to admission of this evidence.

We are of the view that once the state opened the door to presentation of this evidence to the jury, it was error to preclude the defendant from advancing conflicting testimony. Where the state has put forward testimony showing a causal relationship between the act complained of and the death of the decedent, the defense must then come forward and present evi[459]*459dence, if possible, as to some other cause of death. Coachman v. State, 114 So.2d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959).

We do not find any merit to appellant’s other points on appeal. We reverse the conviction herein and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

POLEN, Judge.

This appeal from a judgment and conviction for manslaughter deals primarily with the admissibility of medical testimony that the treatment, or lack thereof, received by the decedent in the hospital rose to a level of culpable negligence. The law appears well settled that where the wound inflicted by the assailant is dangerous to life, mere erroneous treatment of it would not afford the defendant protection against a charge of unlawful homicide. Johnson v. State, 64 Fla. 321, 59 So. 894 (1912); Tunsil v. State, 338 So.2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Adams v. State, 310 So.2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).

However, in this case the state was permitted, over objection, to question the medical examiner extensively on whether the care or lack of care received by the decedent had any bearing on his death some eight days after admission to the hospital. This was clearly made a major feature of the case by the prosecution. The defense sought to present contradictory testimony from a neurologist, Dr. Cohen, but the court sustained the state’s objection to admission of this evidence.

We are of the view that once the state opened the door to presentation of this evidence to the jury, it was error to preclude the defendant from advancing conflicting testimony. Where the state has put forward testimony showing a causal relationship between the act complained of and the death of the decedent, the defense must then come forward and present evi[459]*459dence, if possible, as to some other cause of death. Coachman v. State, 114 So.2d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959).

We do not find any merit to appellant’s other points on appeal. We reverse the conviction herein and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

542 So. 2d 458, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1091, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2306, 1989 WL 43312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hampton-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack