Garcia v. State

• Decision Date: 08 November 1894
• Parties: GARCIA et al. v. STATE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

16 So. 223

34 Fla. 311

GARCIA et al. v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court

November 8, 1894

Error to circuit court, Monroe county; Barron Phillips, Judge.

Emilio Garcia, Jose Rodriguez, and Camillo Sans were convicted of murder, and appeal. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. Where the judgment of the circuit court refusing a motion for change of venue in a criminal case is a plain and palpable abuse of the discretion permitted by law in such cases, it is such error as requires the interference of the appellate court and a reversal of the judgment.

2. The evidence offered by the plaintiffs in error on their motion for change of venue, as fully set out in the opinion herein not being dispute, by any evidence upon the part of the state, was such a showing as necessitated a change of the venue; and the refusal to grant the motion was error.

3. Our statute (Rev. St. s 2918) simply permits the court in criminal cases 'to order a view by the jury.' Being a criminal statute, it should be strictly construed; and, in the absence of any provision as to the manner of making the view, the action of the jury should be confined to a view,--i. e., a seeing of and inspection of the premises.

4. The statute cited in the preceding headnote does not authorize the examination of witnesses before the jury while they are away from the courthouse engaged in taking the view ordered by the court. Where there is a county courthouse in the county, that is the proper place for the trial of criminal cases, and no portion of the trial should be removed to any other place without express authority of law.

5. In the absence of legislative provisions describing the mode in which jury views are to be conducted, it is more in consonance with the theory and methods of judicial trials that the jury should base their findings solely upon sworn testimony in open court, or by depositions taken as provided by law.

6. The extent to which the circuit court may go in ordering a view by the jury in a criminal case is to direct a view of the premises, where a crime is supposed to have been committed by the jury. The defendants and counsel for the respective parties may be permitted to accompany them, and some person selected by the parties, or named by the court, may accompany the jury to point the premises out to them.

7. Plaintiffs in error offered evidence tending to establish an alibi for some of them. Their counsel insisted that such evidence was not offered to prove an alibi, but only to contradict other evidence offered by the state, and insisted that the court should not charge the jury as to the law upon the subject of alibi. Held, that the court should charge the jury upon the law applicable to the evidence given by the witnesses, and is not bound to accept the construction placed upon such evidence by counsel.

COUNSEL Jefferson B. Browne and N. B. K. Pettingill, for plaintiffs in error.

W. B Lamar, Atty. Gen., and Thomas Palmer, for the State.

OPINION LIDDON, C.J.

The plaintiffs in error were indicted at the spring term, 1893 of the circuit court of Monroe county, for the murder of one Jaime Mira. Thirty-five assignments of error are made here. We shall consider such of them as appear necessary to a proper disposition of the case.

The first three assignments relate to rulings of the court overruling motions of the plaintiffs in error (defendants below) for a change of venue. It is alleged that several motions were made for such change of venue, but the bill of exceptions shows only one, which was made at the spring term 1894. We confine ourselves, therefore, in considering this question, to the third assignment of error, which is predicated upon this ruling. This motion was upon the ground that the defendants could not 'obtain a fair and impartial trial before a jury in said county of Monroe,' as shown by affidavits filed and refiled with the motion, and prayed to be taken as a part of it. A number of aff-davits which had been offered with previous motions of the same character were refiled, together with additional affidavits, from the respective defendants, that the statements in said former affidavits were still true, and as applicable to said cause as when the same were made. New affidavits were also originally filed and considered by the court upon the motion. Fernando Figueredo and Jose C. Bolano, after confirming a previous affidavit, and asserting its present applicability to the case, deposed, in substance, as follows: Since the last term of this court, serious trouble has arisen between the Cuban inhabitants of said county, to which race defendants belong, and the other inhabitants thereof; that, as a consequence of said trouble, a very strong feeling of ill will and prejudice exists against said Cuban inhabitants in general, which will tend still further to the harm and injury of the defendants before a jury of said county, and will greatly increase the prejudice against the defendants, and deponents verily believe that said defendants can not obtain a fair and impartial before a jury of said county; that very few of the Cuban inhabitants of said county speak English well enough to sit on a jury; and that practically none of said Cuban inhabitants are qualified in all respects so as to be eligible to sit upon a jury in said county. Mortimer Falk and John Denham deposed that they were citizens of Key West, in said county; that they had heard various persons express opinions in regard to the guilt of defendants, and were acquainted with the general sentiment of the community in regard thereto; that from what they have heard, and their knowledge of such prevailing sentiment, they believe that defendants could not obtain a fair and impartial trial in said county; that they had heard citizens of said county say that the defendants ought to be convicted on general principles; and that deponents believed that such was the prevailing sentiment among the people of said county. J. R. Ricker deposed, in substance, that he had been a resident of Monroe county for more than 10 years. That he was engaged in running a sawmill, sawing wood for family use. That he was not acquainted with the defendants. That he never saw either of them until he was called upon a jury which tried them a year before. From statements which he had heard from citizens of said county expressive of their opinion, he did not believe that the defendants could get a fair and impartial trial in said county. That deponent was on the jury which tried these defendants in June before, and heard jurors discuss matters, as a reason for the conviction of the prisoners, which were not in evidence before the jury. It was argued in the jury room that Emilio Garcia killed a man in Havana, though there was no evidence of such fact before the jury. That one juror discussed in the jury room matters of fact of which he claimed to have knowledge, but which were not testified to by any witnesses. That this same juror told of matters of fact which he claimed to have learned from the principal state witnesses, notwithstanding that he had sworn that he had had no conversation with any of the witnesses; and that this same juror discussed in the jury room matters which he claimed to know by having been around with leading witnesses for the state in search of evidence against the defendants. That several of the jurors used as an argument with him, to influence him to bring in a verdict of guilty against the prisoners, that the community expected them to convict the said defendants. That, after the verdict in said case was rendered, it became known that the deponent was the only juror who had held out for an acquittal, and had caused the disagreement of the jury; and that from that time deponent began to suffer in his business, on account of the part he had been compelled, upon his oath as a juror, to perform in said case. Customers left him, and others tried to influence more of his customers to leave him on that account. That from all he had heard, and the knowledge he had of the feeling existing throughout the whole community, he did not believe that the defendants could get a fair and impartial trial in said county of Monroe. Peter T. Knight deposed that he resides in the city of Key West, and is clerk of the circuit court for the county of Monroe; that the indictment against the above-named defendants was found at the fall term of said court in the year 1891, but that said parties were arrested in the month of May, 1891, and that the said Emilio Garcia and Jose Rodriguez had a preliminary examination before W. A. Gwynn, a justice of the peace, in the month of June of that year; that from the time said arrests were made great excitement prevailed in the city of Key West over the affair, and the whole community was aroused by inflammatory articles in the local press against the defendants, calling upon all good citizens to help see to it that they were at last brought to justice for a long list of offenses of which said articles pronounced said defendants, and especially the defendant Emilio Garcia, to be guilty, and that the community was by that means rid of a gang of cutthroats and murderers, among which said defendants were alleged to be numbered; that by means of such articles, and by the active endeavors of certain persons in the community, the public mind was so prejudiced and excited against said defendants that threats of lynching them were openly made, crowds gathered around the jail, and public meetings were held, at which large rewards were offered for the production of evidence which would convict said defendants, and resolutions were adopted calling upon the state to offer additional rewards for the same purpose, and every means employed to violently prejudice and excite...