Mcnish v. State
| Decision Date | 08 March 1904 |
| Citation | 36 So. 175,47 Fla. 66 |
| Parties | McNISH v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
In Banc. Error to Circuit Court, Columbia County; Lucius J Reeves, Judge.
Ozzie McNish was convicted of aggravated assault, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. A plea of former jeopardy, setting up that the defendant had previously been indicted and put on trial for an assault with intent to murder one Pendee Taylor, is no defense to a subsequent indictment charging the defendant with an assault with intent to murder one Phillip McNish, although the plea avers in general terms that the alleged assaults and offenses were the same.
2. Where there is a conflict in the evidence, but there is ample testimony to sustain the verdict, this court will not grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, or the weight of evidence, when the verdict is in accordance with the law of the case.
3. After the dinner recess the jury were called and answered to their names before the defendant was brought into court, and during his absence. His absence being discovered, no further proceedings were had until the defendant was brought into court, when the jury were again called. Held, that the calling of the jury in defendant's absence furnishes no ground of reversal.
A. J. Henry, for plaintiff in error.
J. B Whitfield, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Ozzie McNish was indicted at the spring term, 1903, of the circuit court for Columbia county, for assault with intent to murder one Phillip McNish, and was tried and convicted of aggravated assault. From the judgment and sentence he has sued out a writ of error from this court.
The errors assigned are: (1) The court erred in sustaining the demurrer by the state to defendant's plea of former jeopardy.
(2) The court erred in overruling and denying defendant's motion for a new trial.
(3) The court erred in proceeding with the trial and receiving the verdict in defendant's absence.
The defendant pleaded in bar, in substance, that at the same term of the court he was indicted for an assault with intent to murder one Pendee Taylor; that he was put on trial on said indictment; that, upon reading the indictment to the jury the state attorney discovered that the person named in the indictment as Pendee Taylor was Pendee Robinson, and not Pendee Taylor, and that thereupon the state attorney entered a nolle prosequi, stopped the trial, and discharged the jury, without the consent of Ozzie McNish; that he is the same Ozzie McNish named in the said indictment, and that the assault therein charged is the same supposed assault charged in the present indictment as committed on Phillip McNish; and that the offenses are the same. The court sustained the state's demurrer to this plea, and this ruling forms the basis of the first assignment of error. There was no error in this ruling. The offenses alleged in the two indictments are not the same. It is not alleged that Phillip McNish and Pendee Taylor are names of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Markey v. State
-
Mcdonald v. State
...20 Fla. 391; Small v. State, 20 Fla. 780; Robinson v. State, 24 Fla. 358, 5 So. 6; Teal v. State, 43 Fla. 580, 31 So. 282; McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 66, 36 So. 175; Caldwell v. State, 50 Fla. 4, 39 So. 188; v. State, 54 Fla. 12, 44 So. 719; Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 90, 45 So. 818; Clark v. St......
-
Freeman v. State
... ... See Long v. State, 42 Fla. 612, 28 So. 855; ... Johns v. State (Fla.) 35 So. 71 ... Under ... an indictment for assault with intent to commit murder, there ... may be a conviction of aggravated assault. Pittman v ... State, 25 Fla. 648, ... [39 So. 787] ... 6 So. 437; McNish v. State, 47 Fla. ----, 36 So ... The ... verdict is sustained by the evidence ... The ... judgment is affirmed ... SHACKLEFORD, ... C.J., and COCKRELL, J., concur ... TAYLOR, ... HOCKER, and PARKHILL, JJ., concur in the ... ...
-
Webster v. State
... ... dire examination of talesmen offered as trial jurors grounds ... of challenge for cause to such talesmen, and, if they fail to ... do so, they cannot, as a general rule, after verdict, avail ... themselves of their ignorance of the existence of such ... grounds of challenge. McNish v. State (Fla.) 36 So ... 175; Gavin v. State, 42 Fla. 553, 29 So. 405; ... Denmark v. State, 43 Fla. 182, 31 So. 269. No ... showing is made which requires that, in the interest of ... justice, an objection to a juror for cause after verdict ... should be allowed in this case ... ...