Mcrae v. State
| Decision Date | 03 January 1912 |
| Citation | 62 Fla. 74,57 So. 348 |
| Parties | McRAE v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Gadsden County; J. W. Malone, Judge.
Julius McRae was convicted of murder in the first degree, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Where no abuse of discretion is shown, the denial of a motion for a continuance will not be disturbed by the appellate court.
Where none of the talesmen objected to by the defendant served on the jury, and it does not appear that any objectionable jurors were selected after the defendant's challenges were exhausted, alleged errors in rulings on challenges for cause may be immaterial. An accused has a right to an impartial jury, but not to any particular persons as jurors.
Where the question is whether the accused made a certain statement the fact that others may have also made the statement may be immaterial.
A charge that: 'The defendant has set up an alibi; and the burden of proving it is on him, but he is not bound to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and, if upon the whole case the testimony raised a reasonable doubt that the defendant was present when the crime was committed, he should be acquitted'--is not prejudicial or burdensome to the defendant, since the only burden it put upon the defendant was to meet the testimony as to the defendant's guilt by raising a reasonable doubt that he was present when the crime was committed.
Where the evidence is entirely circumstantial, but it points strongly to the defendant's guilt, and the whole evidence is such that the jury could reasonably have found the defendant guilty, and no errors of law or procedure appear the judgment will not be reversed.
COUNSEL W. H. Ellis, for plaintiff in error.
Park Trammell, Atty. Gen., and C. O. Andrews, for the State.
Julius McRae was convicted of murder in the first degree with a recommendation to mercy and took writ of error.
A motion for a continuance, based largely on the alleged inability of the accused to secure counsel and to prepare his defense in the time allowed him, was denied.
No abuse of discretion by the trial court appears; and, as the accused was in fact ably represented and given ample opportunity to make his defense, the denial of a continuance will not cause a reversal of the judgment.
The action of the court in excusing talesmen, and in holding others to be qualified jurors, does not appear to have injured the accused, as none of the jurors objected to by the accused served on the jury, and, although it does appear that the defendant exhausted his statutory number of peremptory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. State
...a venireman unqualified to serve, and has no unused peremptory challenges left when the panel is formed. See 16 R. C. L. 291; McRae v. State, 62 Fla. 74, 57 So. 348. McRae case definitely holds that the action of the court in holding a juror to be qualified over defendant's objection works ......
-
Frank v. United States
...member thereof, is reversible error. In many states it is held that under such circumstances the error is not prejudicial. McRae v. State, 62 Fla. 74, 57 So. 348; Cromer v. Borders Coal Co., 152 Ill. App. 555; State v. Foster, 136 Iowa, 527, 114 N. W. 36; State v. Addison, 134 La. 542, 64 S......
-
Leavine v. State
... ... See Colson v ... State, 51 Fla. 19, 40 So. 183. The right of peremptory ... challenge is a right to reject, not a right to select. 1 ... Thompson on Trials (2d Ed.) § 43; Melbourne v ... State, 51 Fla. 69, 40 So. 189; Ammons v. State, ... 65 Fla. 166, 61 So. 496; McRae v. State, 62 Fla. 74, ... 57 So. 348; [109 Fla. 456] Penton v. State, 64 Fla ... 411, 60 So. 343; Blackwell v. State, 101 Fla. 997, ... 132 So. 468 ... There ... is nothing in the record tending to show that in drawing the ... names from the jury box of men to serve for the ... ...
-
Penn v. State, 74123
...No. 70,714 (Fla.1990); Floyd v. State, 569 So.2d 1225 (Fla.1990); Pen tecost; Rollins v. State, 148 So.2d 274 (Fla.1963); McRae v. State, 62 Fla. 74, 57 So. 348 (1912). The United States Supreme Court recently echoed Young's reasoning and conclusions in Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 108 S.......