Dixon v. State
| Citation | 80 So. 741,77 Fla. 143 |
| Parties | DIXON v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 04 February 1919 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 21, 1919.
Error to Circuit Court, Lafayette County; M. F. Horne, Judge.
J. L Dixon was convicted of unlawfully and viciously setting fire to and burning a fence, the property of another, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
An assignment of error that the defendant was never arraigned cannot be sustained, where it appears from the record that the defendant was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty.
It is well established here that a judgment of conviction will not be reversed on writ of error even if technical errors were committed in rulings on the admissibility of evidence or in charges given or refused or in other matters of procedure where the evidence of guilt is clear and ample, and no fundamental rights of the defendants were violated, and it appears from the whole record that such technical errors, if any, were not prejudicial to the defendants.
Where there is substantial competent evidence of all the facts legally essential to support the verdict, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the jury were not influenced by considerations outside the evidence, this court will not disturb the verdict.
Applications for new trials upon the ground of newly discovered evidence are looked upon by the courts with distrust and disfavor, and are granted only under the following restrictions: (1) The evidence must have been discovered since the former trial (2) the party must have used due diligence to procure it on the former trial; (3) it must be material to the issue; (4) it must go to the merits of the cause, and not merely to impeach the character of a witness; (5) it must not be merely cumulative; (6) it must be such as ought to procure on another trial an opposite result on the merits.
COUNSEL W. P. Chavous and Hal W. Adams, both of Mayo, for plaintiff in error.
Van C. Swearingen, Atty. Gen., and Worth W. Trammell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was indicted upon a charge of willfully and maliciously setting fire to and burning a fence, the property of another. He was arraigned, entered a plea of not guilty, and upon a trial was found guilty as charged. From the judgment sentencing him to a term of three years at hard labor in the state prison he takes writ of error.
The first assignment of error is that the defendant was never arraigned upon said indictment. This is first called to the court's attention by the assignment of errors in this court. It appears from the record that the defendant was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. This is a complete answer to this contention.
Several assignments are predicated upon certain orders of the trial court overruling objections of the defendant to questions propounded to state witnesses and upon certain other orders sustaining objections of the state attorney to questions propounded to defendant's witnesses. We have examined each of such rulings, and find no reversible error in any of them.
It is well established here that----
'A judgment of conviction will not be reversed on writ of error, even if technical errors were committed in rulings on the admissibility of evidence or in charges given or refused or in other matters of procedure, where the evidence of guilt is clear and ample, and no fundamental rights of the defendants were violated, and it appears from the whole record that such technical errors, if any, were not prejudicial to the defendants.' Seymour v. State, 66 Fla. 133, 63 So. 7; Kersey v. State, 73 Fla. 832, 74 So. 983.
The refusal of the trial court to set aside the verdict and grant the defendant a new trial is assigned as error. Under this assignment it is urged that the evidence wholly fails to support the verdict, and counsel for defendant in their brief present, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitten v. State
...v. State, 82 Fla. 291, 89 So. 802; Poyner v. State, 81 Fla. 726, 88 So. 762; Riggins v. State, 78 Fla. 459, 83 So. 267; Dixon v. State, 77 Fla. 143, 80 So. 741; v. State, 76 Fla. 164, 79 So. 436. The alleged homicide appears from the proof offered on behalf of the state to have been committ......
-
Walker Fertilizer Co., for Use and Benefit of Walker v. Cole
... ... reason for granting a retrial although it must fall within ... certain bounds enumerated in Dixon v. State, 77 Fla ... 143, 80 So. 741, one of them being that such evidence must be ... relevant to an issue in the case ... We ... ...
-
Smith v. State
...for new trials upon the ground of newly discovered evidence are looked upon with distrust and disfavor by the courts. Dixon v. State, 77 Fla. 143, 80 So. 741; Williams v. State, 53 Fla. 89, 43 So. Gilbert v. State, 61 Fla. 25, 55 So. 464; Williams v. State, 68 Fla. 88, 66 So. 424; Mitchell ......
-
Poyner v. State
... ... even if technical errors were committed in rulings on the ... admissibility of evidence or in charges given or refused ... where the evidence of guilt is ample and no fundamental ... rights of the defendant are infringed. Riggins v ... State, 78 Fla. 459, 83 So. 267; Dixon v. State, ... 77 Fla. 143, 83 So. 741; Barker v. State, 76 Fla ... 164, 79 So. 436; Settles v. State, 75 Fla. 296, 78 ... So. 287; Milligan v. State, 75 Fla. 815, 78 So. 535; ... Smith v. State, 74 Fla. 44, 76 So. 334 ... [81 ... Fla. 729] As we have said, the jury returned a ... ...