Adams v. State

• Decision Date: 24 March 1908
• Citation: 46 So. 152,55 Fla. 1
• Parties: ADAMS v. STATE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

46 So. 152

55 Fla. 1

ADAMS v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

March 24, 1908

Error to Circuit Court, Hernando County; William S. Bullock, Judge.

January Adams was convicted of murder, and brings error. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

The method of conducting trials, as to the time of assembling the recesses of the court, the sending for witnesses, and the introduction of evidence, must be left, in the nature of things, to the reasonable discretion of the trial court, and an appellate court will not interfere, unless it appears that some injustice or wrong has been done the accused.

Where the evidence raises grave doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the general rule that excludes the consideration of newly discovered evidence which is of a cumulative or rebutting nature should be relaxed.

COUNSEL Davant & Davant, for plaintiff in error.

OPINION

HOCKER, J.

At the fall term, 1907, of the circuit court of Hernando county January Adams, the plaintiff in error, referred to hereafter as the defendant, was indicted for the murder of one George Green, and upon trial was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to the state prison for the term of his natural life. He seeks a reversal of this sentence.

There are two assignments of error:

'First. That the court erred in allowing the cause continued from the afternoon of the 21st day of November, 1907, to the morning of the 22d day of November, 1907, upon motion of the state attorney, over the objection of defendant, for the purpose of allowing the state to produce a witness whom the state attorney stated had been present, and had gone home, there being no showing as to the materiality of the witness and reason for his absence; whereas, his honor, the circuit judge, should have refused such postponement and required the cause to proceed.

'Second. That his honor, the circuit judge, erred in overruling the defendant's motion for a new trial, upon the following grounds, to wit:

'(a) That the verdict was contrary to law.

'(b) That the verdict was contrary to the evidence.

'(c) That the verdict was contrary to the law, the evidence and to the charge of the court.

'(d) Because of evidence discovered by the defendant subsequently to his trial and conviction, which would have materially affected the finding of the jury herein, as was shown by affidavits filed in support of the motion.'

As to the first assignment, it appears that about 4 o'clock p. m. on the day the trial began, and after the evidence for the state and defendant had been concluded and the defendant had rested his case, the state attorney announced that the testimony developed that it was necessary to have another witness who had gone home, and asked the court to take a recess until the witness could be sent for. The court then took a recess until the usual time of convening the court next morning. We find no reversible error in this action of the court. The method of conducting trials, as to the time of assembling, the recesses of the court, the sending for witnesses, and the introduction of evidence, must, in the nature of things, be left to the reasonable discretion of the trial court. The object of a trial is to approximate justice as nearly as possible, and, unless it appears that some injustice or wrong has been done a defendant, this court will not interfere with the action of the trial court. See Wilson v. Johnson, 51 Fla. 370, 41 So. 395, and authorities there cited.

As to the second assignment of error, the record shows that the defendant filed an affidavit in support thereof on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Among other things he alleges therein that subsequently to his trial he had learned that one Joe Ruth was an eyewitness to the shooting, and will testify that George Green was at the time attempting to shoot and kill the defendant with a single-barrel shotgun, and that defendant was in imminent danger of death at the hands of George Green at that time, and it was necessary for the defendant to shoot Green to save his life, and that he did not know these facts until the affidavit of H. F. Price was shown him; that affiant had been imprisoned continuously in the Brooksville jail since the day after the shooting, and had had no opportunity to talk and secure witnesses in his behalf.

The affidavit of Mr. H. F. Price was filed, stating, among other things, that January Adams worked for him at one time; that soon after the shooting of George Green he had a talk with Joe Ruth, who worked for him; and that Joe Ruth told him that he was present when Green was shot, and saw the shooting, and that Green pointed a singlebarrel shotgun at January Adams as he came out of Herbert Pugh's house at Wiscon; that Adams called to Green three times in quick succession, and Green did not reply, but continued to point the gun at him; that Adams shot with a pistol and left. Affiant, Price, says that he believes Ruth's testimony can be secured at another trial, and that he will testify as above.

Defendant also stated in substance in his affidavit that on another trial he can secure witnesses who will rebut the evidence given against him by George Watson, who was one of the witnesses introduced by the state on the next morning after the recess which has been spoken of was taken, and that he has learned these facts...