Dorman v. State
| Decision Date | 01 November 1904 |
| Parties | DORMAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
In Banc. Error to Circuit Court, Baker County; Rhydon M. Call Judge.
Jerry M. Dorman, Sr., was convicted of manslaughter, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where two witnesses had been subpoenaed by a defendant in a criminal case to a term of the court immediately preceding that of the trial, and two others to the latter term, all of whom were of nomadic habits and were not found by the officers, and all whose alleged testimony would be merely cumulative to other testimony offered by the defendant, there was no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in refusing to continue the case on account of the absence of such witnesses.
2. Where it appears that after a criminal trial was begun, and several jurors were, prior to the adjournment for the day accepted and sworn on the jury, and that on the convening of the court next day the judge discharged one of such jurors because of his kinship to some of the parties involved, and the record then shows that the panel of the jury was completed and the jury sworn, the act of the judge in discharging the juror was not an abuse of judicial discretion.
3. Where a defendant in a criminal case offers to read in evidence the testimony of one of his witnesses, regularly taken at a preliminary hearing before a county judge, on the ground that such witness could not, after diligent search, be found by the sheriff of the county where the trial was had nor by the sheriff of another county, and where it does not appear that the witness was dead or out of the jurisdiction of the court, and where the court had refused to continue the case on account of the absence of such witness because due diligence had not been shown to procure his attendance, the trial judge committed no error in refusing to allow such testimony taken at the preliminary hearing before the county judge to be read in evidence at the trial.
4. The evidence supported the verdict.
COUNSEL Geo. U. Walker, for plaintiff in error.
W. H Ellis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
On the 8th day of April, 1902, the grand jury of Baker county presented in open court an indictment against Jerry Dorman, Andrew Dorman, Thad Dorman, Jerry Dorman, Jr., and Nain Dorman, charging them with the murder of Josh Hogans on the 21st of December, 1901. At the spring term of the circuit court, 1903, the defendants were tried, and all acquitted, except Jerry Dorman, Sr., who was convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to the State Prison. He seeks a reversal of this judgment and sentence here.
On April 7, 1903, the defendants moved the court for a continuance for the term on account of the absence of four witnesses. The court overruled the motion, and defendants excepted to the ruling, and it is here assigned as error. For two of these witnesses subpoenas were issued at the previous term; for the other two, before the term at which the case was tried. None of them were found by the officers, and seem to have been nomadic in their habits. The evidence expected of them was merely cumulative to that of a witness for the defense who testified. We do not think the court exercised other than a sound discretion. 9 Cyc. 167-176; Webster v. State (Fla.) 36 So. 584, and cases cited.
The impaneling of the jury was begun on the 7th of April, 1903 and several of the jurors who tried said cause (how many, does not appear) were, prior to adjournment of the court for the day, accepted and sworn on the jury, among whom was A. R. Burnsed. After convening the court the next day, and before proceeding, the judge announced that he had been satisfied that said juror, Burnsed, was disqualified as a juror, because of kinship to some of the parties involved, and discharge the said juror, to which action of the judge the defendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Putnal v. State
... ... thrown around it. Further discussion seems unnecessary, as we ... are clearly of the opinion that no error has been made to ... appear to us in overruling the grounds of objection urged ... The case at bar presents a different question from the one ... passed upon in Dorman v. State, 48 Fla. 18, 37 So ... The ... fourth assignment is based upon the sustaining of an ... objection made on behalf of the state to a question ... propounded by the defendant to the witness W. B. Davis. We ... cannot consider it, for the reason that the bill of [56 Fla ... ...
- Haden v. Sims
-
Walsingham v. State
...45 Fla. 46, 34 So. 287; Williams v. State, 45 Fla. 128, 34 So. 279; Peadon v. State, 46 Fla. 124, 35 So. 204. Also see Dorman v. State, 48 Fla. 18, 37 So. 561, Hopkins v. State, 52 Fla. 39, 42 So. 52. The discussion in 24 Cyc. 273, concerning the relationship or business connection of juror......
-
Richardson v. State
... ... * * * The great weight of authority is to the effect that the admission of such testimony, when a proper predicate has been laid therefor, is not violative either of the hearsay rule or the constitutional provision of confrontation.' ... In Dorman v. State, 14 a manslaughter case, the trial court refused to allow defendants to use the deposition of an absent witness taken at preliminary hearing on the ground that sufficient diligence had not been shown to procure the attendance of the witness. To like effect is Davis v. State, 15 a Breaking ... ...