Davis v. State

Citation65 So.2d 307
PartiesDAVIS v. STATE.
Decision Date19 May 1953
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Joseph A. Varon, Hollywood, for appellant.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and William A. O'Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

DREW, Justice.

Appellant, Alvin Charles Davis, was arrested in the early morning of April 2, 1952, in Broward County and charged with breaking and entering. Seven days later a preliminary hearing was held before the County Judge of said County, at which hearing the appellant was present with counsel and cross-examined witnesses who testified. Among those who testified and who were cross-examined by counsel for appellant were Frank V. Merrick, Elvira Merrick, Walter S. Sisson, Gertrude Durke, W. D. Stevenson, Ethel Stevenson and Carl W. Henderson.

An information was thereafter (April 15, 1952) filed by the County Solicitor of Broward County against appellant charging him with breaking and entering a dwelling house with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, to wit, petit larceny. On that charge he was tried, the jury returned a guilty verdict and a judgment of guilty was entered. This appeal is from that judgment.

At the trial a deputy sheriff testified that the seven witnesses heretofore named had left the county, had returned North and could not be found for the service of a witness subpoena. He said he had made one attempt to serve the subpoena but the places where the witnesses had resided had closed for the summer and he was told that they had gone North. After this evidence was introduced the County Solicitor then produced the Court Reporter, who took the evidence at the preliminary hearing, who, over the vigorous objection of the appellant, then read in the record and to the jury the evidence of these witnesses before the County Judge taken at the preliminary hearing. The testimony of these witnesses consumed 35 pages of the record.

Appellant presents here two questions for determination. They are:

First question: Is the transcript of testimony of complaining witnesses adduced at a preliminary hearing before the County Judge admissible in a subsequent trial before the Criminal Court of Record in the absence of the witnesses without violating the constitutional guarantee of confrontation of witnesses by the accused?

Second question: Is a proper predicate established for the admissibility of the transcript of testimony of an absent nonresident witness by showing that one attempt was made to serve the witness with a subpoena at which time the process server was told that the witness had gone?

As to the first question the State contends that the testimony of the seven witnesses is admissible under Sections 932.31 and 92.22, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., which, respectively, read as follows:

'932.31 Same; competency as in civil cases

'The provisions of law relative to the competency of witnesses and evidence in civil cases shall obtain also in criminal cases, except in cases otherwise provided by law.'

'92.22 Use of former bills of exceptions as evidence; use of evidence given on former trial

'In the event it be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court that any evidence used at a trial of a civil case, whether oral or written, and incorporated in a bill of exceptions, or incorporated in the record proper can not be had, then the bill of exceptions taken at the trial, or the evidence incorporated in the record of the trial, may be used as evidence upon any subsequent trial or hearing of the case, or in any other civil cause or civil proceeding, as to any matter in issue at a previous trial or hearing; and, further, in the event that such evidence is not so preserved as before stated, then the same may be used at a subsequent trial or hearing, or in any other civil cause or civil proceeding involving substantially the same issue; if (1) such evidence has at such former trial been reported stenographically or reduced to writing in the presence of the court; (2) that the party against whom the evidence is offered, or his privy, was a party on the former trial; (3) that the issue is substantially the same in both cases; (4) that a substantial reason is shown why the original witness or document is not produced; and, (5) that the court is satisfied that the report of such evidence taken at such former trial is a correct report.'

It contends that these statutes are applicable to criminal proceedings and that inasmuch as the defendant below had the witnesses confront him and cross-examined them at the preliminary hearing, the requirements of Section 11, Declaration of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Montgomery v. State, 33461
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • June 9, 1965
    ...the accused for trial is or is not found. See Baugus v. State, supra; Di Bona v. State, Fla.App., 1960, 121 So.2d 193; and Davis v. State, Fla.1963, 65 So.2d 307. Not being an essential step in a criminal proceeding in this state, it is, a fortiori, not 'a critical stage'--although events t......
  • Mears v. State, 69--278
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 17, 1970
    ...if probable cause exists to hold one accused of a crime for trial. Rouse v. State (1902), 44 Fla. 148, 32 So. 784; Davis v. State (Fla.1953), 65 So.2d 307; Baugus v. State (Fla.1962), 141 So.2d 264. It is not an indispensable prerequisite to the filing of an information, Di Bona v. State (F......
  • Bazarte v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 30, 1959
    ...magistrate shall immediately inform him: * * *.' (Emphasis supplied.) Relative to this matter the Supreme Court of Florida in Davis v. State, 65 So.2d 307, 308, 'The magistrate conducting the preliminary hearing must be an officer not empowered to try and determine the offense. Section 902.......
  • Palmieri v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • May 3, 1967
    ...if probable cause exists to hold one accused of a crime for trial. Rouse v. State (1902), 44 Fla. 148, 32 So. 784; Davis v. State (Fla.1953), 65 So.2d 307; Baugus v. State (Fla.1962), 141 So.2d 264. It is not an indispensable prerequisite to the filing of an information, Di Bona v. State (F......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT