181 So. 350 (Fla. 1938), Hysler v. State
|Citation:||181 So. 350, 132 Fla. 200|
|Opinion Judge:||BUFORD, Justice.|
|Party Name:||HYSLER v. STATE (Case No. 1).|
|Attorney:||[132 Fla. 202]Sam B. Wilson, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error. Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and Tyrus A. Norwood, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.|
|Judge Panel:||BROWN, J., did not participate.|
|Case Date:||February 03, 1938|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Florida|
Rehearing Denied June 3, 1938.
Error to Circuit Court, Duval County; Bayard B. Shield, Judge.
Clyde Hysler was convicted of first-degree murder with recommendation to mercy, and he brings error.
Writ of error brings for review judgment of conviction of murder in the first degree with recommendation to mercy rendered in the circuit court of Duval county in February, 1937.
Plaintiff in error has not complied with rule 20 in the preparation of brief, in that questions of law involved are not stated. The brief states five propositions, as follows:
'1. Did the Court err in sustaining the defendant's plea in abatement of the indictment?
'2. Did the Court err in denying the defendant's motion for a change of venue?
'3. Did the Court err in sustaining the State's several [132 Fla. 203] demurrers to the defendant's several challenges to the array?
'4. Did the Court err in denying the defendant's motions for a directed verdict?
'5. Did the Court err in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial?'
This amounts to no more than stating assignments of error.
In many instances the plaintiff in error has failed to indicate in the brief the page or pages in the transcripe where are to be found the records of the matters and things to which he refers. Failure to comply with the rule in this regard adds much to the labor of the court. And, at best, we may conclude that the brief maker refers to one thing found in the record when he may have had an entirely different part of the record in mind.
Tyrus A. Norwood, Assistant Attorney General, however, has complied with the rule and stated the questions involved to be as follows:
Question No. I. 'Does the Legislature have no power whatever under the Constitution to adopt a reasonable classification of counties to which shall be applicable an Act providing for jury commissioners and for the selection and listing of persons believed qualified as jurors, universality of present operation throughout all counties of the State being required of such an Act?'
Question No. II. 'Does the fact that the Act applies only to counties having a population exceeding 155,000 inhabitants by the last preceding Federal Census, Duval County being the only County having such population, establish the unreasonableness of the classification based upon population or sustain the assertion that the Act is a special or local law, as distinguished from a general law, in contravention[132 Fla. 204] of sections 20, 21, and 24 of article 3 of the Constitution of Florida?'
Question No. III. 'If in fact a general and uniform law adopting a sustainable classification, is the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP