Hughes v. State
| Decision Date | 12 May 1911 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | HUGHES v. STATE. |
Error to Circuit Court, Citrus County; W. S. Bullock, Judge.
Jake Hughes was convicted of an illegal sale of liquor, and brings error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
A defendant in a criminal case is not entitled as of right to an instruction to the jury to render a verdict of not guilty.
The court may in its discretion have the jury retire during the argument of a motion to direct a verdict of not guilty.
No injustice or wrong to the defendant appears to have been done by the action of the court in allowing the state's attorney to call and have testify a witness for the prosecution after the state had rested its case and the defendant had called his witnesses but before any of them had been examined.
Testimony tending to show that a witness bought whisky from Jeff Mathews in a certain house in January, 1910, long before its occupancy by defendant and long before Mathews had any connection with defendant as his servant, employé, or agent is irrelevant; there being no offer to connect by further evidence the defendant with the building or with Mathews in January, 1910.
What the witness 'saw Joe Welch do' should not be stricken as hearsay.
The court in its discretion may allow the introduction of further testimony after the taking of testimony has been closed and the argument of counsel begun.
COUNSEL Geo. W. Scofield, for plaintiff in error.
Park Trammell, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error was convicted in the circuit court for Citrus county of engaging in the business of a dealer in liquors in a county that had voted against the sale of liquor, and comes here by writ of error.
The first error assigned is the denial of the motion for a new trial. The grounds of this motion will be considered with other assignments.
The court was not in error in refusing to direct a verdict of not guilty. A defendant is not entitled as of right to an instruction to the jury to render a verdict of not guilty. Leaptrot v. State, 51 Fla. 57, 40 So. 616. While the trial judge would have the right, after all the evidence in a criminal case has been submitted, if he were clearly satisfied that all of said evidence would not warrant or support a verdict of guilty, to instruct the jury to acquit this is a matter resting entirely within the discretion of the judge, and no error can be predicated upon his refusal or failure to do so. McCray v. State, 45 Fla. 80, 34 So. 5.
The court did not err by its refusal to have the jury retire during the argument of the motion to direct a verdict of not guilty. State v. Huff, 76 Iowa, 200, 40 N.W. 720.
At the conclusion of the testimony of the witness for the state W F. Warnock, the state attorney, announced that he had closed his case and had no further testimony to offer, and the defendant called his witnesses. The state then called Frank Johnson as a witness; but the defendant objected because the state had already closed its case. None of the witnesses for the defendant had testified when the state called the witness Johnson immediately after the close of its case had been announced. There was no error here. No injustice or wrong to the defendant appears to have been done by the action of the court, and so this court will not interfere therein. The method of conducting trials the introduction of evidence, must be left to the reasonable discretion of the trial court. Adams v. State, 55 Fla. 1, 46 So. 152, and Robinson v. State, 50 Fla. 115, 39 So. 465.
The witness testified that he bought a half pint of whisky from Jeff Mathews and paid him 50 cents for it in the same house in the month of January, A. D., 1910. The 'same house' referred to was the house the defendant occupied as a store in May, 1910.
The court erred in refusing to strike the testimony of this witness upon motion of defendant.
This testimony related to a transaction that happened in the building in January, 1910,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tully v. State
... ... wherein the defendant was harmed by the rulings complained ... of. See, also, as to the discretion in the conduct of trials ... generally which necessarily is vested in the trial judge, ... Wilson v. Johnson, 51 Fla. 370, 41 So. 395; ... Adams v. State, 55 Fla. 1, 46 So. 152; Hughes v ... State, 61 Fla. 32, 55 So. 463; Malsby v ... Gamble, 61 Fla. 310, 54 So. 766 ... The ... ninth, tenth, and eleventh assignments, which are argued ... together, are as follows: ... [69 ... Fla. 677] 'Ninth Assignment of Error ... 'The ... court erred ... ...
-
Yarbrough v. State
... ... verdict in favor of the defendant. There was no error in this ... ruling. It has been repeatedly held by this court that a ... defendant is not entitled as of right to an instruction to ... the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. Drayton v ... State, 82 So. 801; Hughes v. State, 61 Fla. 32, ... 55 So. 463; Ryan v. State, 60 Fla. 25, 53 So. 448; ... Menefee v. State, 59 Fla. 316, 51 So. 555 ... The ... question to which most of the brief of counsel is devoted is ... based upon an assignment which challenges the soundness of ... the trial court's ... ...
-
Sanford v. State
...to return a verdict of not guilty. Simon v. Finlayson, 79 Fla. 254, 84 So. 95; Drayton v. State, 78 Fla. 254, 82 So. 801; Hughes v. State, 61 Fla. 32, 55 So. 463. defendant, at the time of the attempted arrest of the accused, was an officer of the town of Silver Bluff. The charge was a misd......
-
Fuller v. State
... ... evidence to offer on the issue. It is well established law ... that the method of conducting trials and the introduction of ... evidence is left to the reasonable discretion on the trial ... court and every presumption is in favor of the correctness of ... such rulings. Hughes v. State, 61 Fla. 32, 55 So ... 463; Adams v. State, 56 Fla. 1, 48 So. 219. Counsel ... for appellants at the time of announcing that they 'did ... not at this time' have any evidence to offer on the issue ... then before the court, knew that broad discretion by law was ... conferred on trial ... ...