Hysler v. State
| Decision Date | 05 February 1923 |
| Citation | 85 Fla. 153,95 So. 573 |
| Parties | HYSLER v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Duval County; Daniel A. Simmons, Judge.
Thomas W. Hysler, Jr., was convicted of manslaughter and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Error assigned, but not argued in briefs, treated as abandoned. Errors assigned, but not argued in the briefs, will be treated as abandoned.
Verdict sustained by competent evidence not disturbed. Where there is in the record competent evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict, although it may be contradicted by other evidence apparently equally credible, the appellate court is not authorized to disturb the jury's findings.
Error based on remark of court during trial not considered on appeal, where no objection or exception thereto or ruling thereon. An assignment, based upon an alleged remark or statement made by the trial judge during the progress of a trial, cannot be considered by an appellate court, where the record fails to show objection or exception thereto or ruling thereon.
Improper argument of state's attorney not reviewed, unless objected to and exception taken to the ruling. When a defendant in a criminal prosecution conceives that the state attorney has used improper and harmful language in his argument to the jury, in order to have the same reviewed by an appellate court it must be made to appear that such language was brought to the attention of the trial court, a ruling obtained thereon, and exception taken to such ruling.
Not error to sustain objections to questions substantially answered at previous or subsequent stage of trial. In the facilitation of business, trial courts must regulate the conduct of proceedings before them, and generally it is not an abuse of discretion to prevent repetition of questions previously asked and answered by witnesses, and it will not be held to be error if the court sustains objections to questions substantially answered at a previous or subsequent stage of the trial.
Re-reading of portion of written charge on request of jury held not error. Where in a homicide trial the jury, after having had the case submitted to them and deliberated for some time returns into the courtroom and announces their failure to agree upon a verdict, and, in response to an inquiry from the court if he can assist them upon any matter of law, requests the court to re-read the portion of his written charge defining the various degrees of homicide, it is not error for the court to re-read that portion of the charge only, and not the entire charge, since it cannot be assumed that a repetition of the whole of the charge would have tended to enlighten the jury, or that the re-reading of the portion defining the offense charged only was harmful.
Frank D. Brennan, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.
Rivers Buford, Atty. Gen., and Marvin C. McIntosh Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Upon an indictment charging murder in the first degree plaintiff in error was tried and found guilty of manslaughter. Writ of error was taken from this court to review the judgment imposing sentence upon him by the trial court.
Rulings of the court sustaining a demurrer of the state to a plea in abatement interposed by the defendant, denying defendant's motion for a new trial and entering judgment against the defendant, are assigned as errors upon which a reversal is sought.
The first assignment, not being argued, will be considered abandoned. Bass v. State, 58 Fla. 1, 50 So. 531; Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213, 35 So. 656.
Under the second assignment it is contended that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict and judgment of conviction. There is, we think, ample support in the evidence to sustain a conviction of even a higher degree of homicide than manslaughter. Deceased was shot and killed by defendant according to the state's theory, amply sustained by proof, though disputed by witnesses for defendant, without any provocation, and when there was no necessity, real or fancied, for such action. There is nothing to indicate that the jury were influenced by considerations outside the evidence. Questions of fact are peculiarly for the jury. Instances of irreconcilable conflict in the evidence are frequent. In such cases it is the province of the jury to determine which is true, and as they find the truth to render their verdict. Where there is in the record competent evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict, although it may be contradicted by other evidence apparently equally credible, the appellate court is not authorized to disturb the jury's findings. Newman v. State (Fla.) 94 So. 154; Hobbs v. State, 77 Fla. 228, 81 So. 444; Martinez v. State, 76 Fla. 159, 79 So. 751; Bailey v. State, 76 Fla. 213, 79 So. 730; F. E. C. Ry. Co. v. Geiger, 66 Fla. 582, 64 So. 238.
Remarks of the trial judge alleged to have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henry v. State
...Florida Constitution, to entertain the certified question, and in accordance therewith, we answer it in the negative. In Hysler v. State, 85 Fla. 153, 95 So. 573 (1923), this Court established the principle that it is proper for a judge to limit the repetition of the charges to those specia......
-
Fogler v. State
... ... 208, 98 So. 497, 502, 99 So. 121. In order that this [96 Fla ... 73] court shall consider an assignment of this nature, it is ... necessary, not only that there be an objection by the ... defendant, a ruling by the trial court, and an exception duly ... reserved (see Hysler v. State, 85 Fla. 153, 95 So ... 573; Brown v. State [Fla.] 108 So. 842), but that ... those steps, together with the objectionable language or ... conduct, be properly evidenced to this court by the bill of ... exceptions in a manner other than by a mere recital in the ... motion for a new ... ...
-
State Of West Va. v. Price
...802, 83 S. E. 75; Freeman v. Freeman, 71 W. Va. 303, 314, 76 S. E. 657; People v. Finali, 31 Cal. App. 479, 160 P. 850; Tlysler v. State-, 85 Fla. 153, 95 So. 573. We, therefore, are of the opinion that there was no error involved in the conduct of the trial court upon this question. An ass......
-
Stockton v. State
...requested, as long as the repeated charges are complete on the subject involved. Id. at 868; Hedges, 172 So.2d at 826; Hysler v. State, 85 Fla. 153, 95 So. 573 (1923). Here, the trial judge did not limit his reinstruction to the jury's specific request; rather, he added manslaughter to it. ......