Court Opinion

ID: 9658530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:04:12.362451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:56.426331
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
The appellant insists that the distinction between our reasoning here and that in our opinion in Bevins v. State, 97 So.2d 572,1 is without any valid difference. There the prejudicial harm came about through a statement in argument that Bevins committed an assault in 1952 for which there was no supporting evidence. This was bad (a) because it charged an unconnected crime (not within permissible exceptions), and (b) because it was not inferable from the evidence.
Here we have what seems to be a case of first impression, i. e., whether or not rhetorical questions partake of argument rather than constitute examination of a witness. Following this question, we were next led to consider whether or not an appellate court can discern any rule to calculate the effect of the use of such questioning. Without attempting to be infallible, we have, albeit as through a glass darkly, perceived two principles (first, the trial judge’s opportunity to observe the effect on the jury and, second, the circumstance that the substance of the questions derived from matters already in evidence) to guide us in what is an uncharted course. On balancing the pros and cons, we adhere to our original affirmance.
Inasmuch as the Bevins case is now before our Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari, and since this case may or may not be distinguishable as reasonable men differ, we have extended this opinion to clarify our reasons • for deciding as we have.
The application for rehearing is
Overruled.

. Ante, p. 228.