Lamb v. State
| Decision Date | 21 June 1905 |
| Citation | 38 So. 906,50 Fla. 106 |
| Parties | LAMB v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Manatee County; William S. Bullock, Judge.
Edward Lamb was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. When the transcript on appeal shows that the bill of exceptions was not presented to the trial judge for authentication within the time allowed therefor after the expiration of the term of the court, such bill of exceptions is a nullity, and will be stricken on motion.
2. Where the bill of exceptions has been stricken from the transcript, no errors assigned can be considered by the appellate court, except those which have a basis in the record proper.
3. Assignments of error, which are abandoned or not argued in the brief for the plaintiff in error, will not be considered by the appellate court.
Craig Phillips, for plaintiff in error.
W. H Ellis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of murder in the first degree in the circuit court for Manatee county, and took writ of error to the judgment of the court sentencing him to capital punishment.
The Attorney General, for the state, moves to strike the bill of exceptions from the transcript, on the grounds that 'it was not settled nor presented for settlement within the time allowed by the court in its special order for settlement thereof after adjournment.'
In the transcript, following the sentence of Edward Lamb to capital punishment, is this record entry;
The bill of exceptions contains the following: 'Said defendant by his counsel aforesaid did on the 29th day of April, 1904, after the expiration of the term of said court aforesaid, by virtue of a special order herein made, propose this, his bill of exceptions to the said opinions and decisions of the said judge, and requests him to sign the same according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, which is done this, the 16th day of May, A. D. 1904. W. S. Bullock, Judge.'
The time allowed the defendant by the order above quoted in which to file his bill of exceptions was 60 days from the adjournment of the term. Lewis v. Meginniss, 25 Fla 589, 6 So. 169. The record shows the court adjourned January 29, 1904, and the bill of exceptions recites that it was presented to the judge on April 29,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Mallard
... ... to do. These orders, made by the Governor under section 8 of ... article 5 of the Constitution of 1885, are as follows: ... 'State ... of Florida, Executive Department ... 'Tallahassee, ... Fla., Oct. 22, 1906 ... 'Whereas, ... it has been officially made ... required. See authorities already cited, and Bush v ... State, 21 Fla. 569, Washington v. State, 48 ... Fla. 62, 37 So. 573, Lamb v. State, 50 Fla. 106, 38 ... So. 906, and Walker v. Parry, 51 Fla. 344, 40 So ... 69. I cannot see why like reasoning would not apply as to ... ...
-
Denmark v. State
... ... abandoned. See Beville v. State, 61 Fla. 8, 55 So ... 854; Cannon v. State, 62 Fla. 20, 57 So. 240; ... Smith v. State, 65 Fla. 56, 61 So. 120; ... Lambright v. State, 34 Fla. 564, 16 So. 582; ... Holland v. State, 39 Fla. 178, 22 So. 298; ... Mathis v. State, 45 Fla. 46, 34 So. 287; Lamb v ... State, 50 Fla. 106, 38 So. 906; Cross v. State, ... 89 Fla. 212, 103 So. 636, Davis v. State, 87 Fla ... 505, 100 So. 739 ... The ... assignments of error in behalf of Berta Hall may likewise be ... treated as abandoned by strictly applying the rule because ... the brief ... ...
-
State v. Merritt
... ... adjournment of court for the settlement and signing of a bill ... of exceptions; therefore what occurred in pais at the hearing ... of this cause is not properly nor authoritatively nor legally ... certified to this court. See Washington v. State, 48 ... Fla. 62, 37 So. 573; Lamb v. State, 50 Fla. 106, 38 ... So. 906; Hainlin v. Budge, 56 Fla. 342, 47 So. 825; ... Bardin v. L'Engle, 13 Fla. 571; Webster v ... Barnett, 17 Fla. 272; Potsdamer v. State of ... Florida, 17 Fla. 895; Bush v. State, 21 Fla ... 569; Myrick v. Merritt, 21 Fla. 799; Rehfield v ... Moore, 76 ... ...
-
Cross v. State
...as no glaring error appears which requires no argument to demonstrate it. See Thomas v. State, 36 Fla. 109, 18 So. 331; Lamb V. State, 50 Fla. 106, 38 So. 906; Smith State, 65 Fla. 56, 61 So. 120. The court charged the jury that in 'cases in which a specific or particular intent is an essen......