Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

69 Fla. 453

Blackwell v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided April 20, 1915

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1915-04-20

<p>1. Misprisions in an indictment in writing “bulltes” for “bullets” and- “premediatted” for “premeditated” are not fatal under Gen. Stats. Section 3962, the words being correctly spelled in other portions of the typewritten indictment.</p> <p>2. A map correctly drawn to a scale representing the scene of a homicide is not rendered inadmissible because of the use of arrows to indicate the supposed direction and distance walked by the accused, there being no material difference in the testimony on this point. ■</p> <p>3. The use of an inapt word by the court in sustaining an objection to a question is held not harmful.</p> <p>ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.</p> <p>The use of a map drawn by an eye-witness to illustrate his testimony,and which accords with all the evidence does not constitute error.</p>

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 1997

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Judgment affirmed, and rehearing denied · Decided 1915-04-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*457ON REHEARING.

Cockrell, J.

¶2-In his petition for rehearing, the plaintiff in error suggests that we overlooked his third assignment of error, which is based upon his exception to the introduction of a map prepared by Mr. Frost. We did not overlook this assignment, but we did not discuss it in the opinion, because we understood from the oral argument of counsel that the Wilson map was considered the real vulnerable point in the State’s case. Mr. Frost was permitted to use this map, Avhich he had drawn, to illustrate his testimony, as to permanent physical objects, and also as to the locations of - the Hamptons, Blackwell and himself during various stages of the tragedy. We know of no valid objection to this method of clarifying testimony, nor was any pointed out to us by counsel. Morever we find no such substantial variance in the evidence as would render the admission of the map a reversible error, if there were authority for holding it incompetent.

¶3Rehearing denied.

Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.
/69/fla/453 · .json · Public domain