Mims v. State
| Decision Date | 13 April 1900 |
| Citation | 27 So. 865,42 Fla. 199 |
| Parties | MIMS v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to criminal court of record, Duval county; John L. Doggett Judge.
Idella Mims was convicted of receiving stolen goods, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. Trial courts, in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion have power to excuse one summoned as a juror, although he may be qualified to serve, and parties interested object, and appellate courts will not interfere with the action of the trial court in this respect, unless the discretion be abused.
2. It is proper to refuse instructions as misleading when they are based on the theory of a party as to facts in evidence, and ignore the legal effect of other facts applicable to the relation and rights of the parties.
3. Evidence examined, and found sufficient to support the verdict.
John Wallace, for plaintiff in error.
William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted in the criminal court of record of Duval county upon an information charging her with receiving and aiding in the concealment of stolen property, knowing same to have been stolen, and from the sentence imposed sued out this writ of error.
The information was filed June 27, 1899, plaintiff in error was arraigned and pleaded not guilty on the same day, and the trial was had on the 29th. The entries in the record proper show that on June 28th six jurors, naming them, were, 'for reasons satisfactory to the court, excused from further jury duty at this term,' there being at the time fourteen jurors in attendance, and a special venire was directed to issue for 'six good and lawful men, to be summoned from the body of the county, returnable instanter,' which was duly issued, served, and returned the same day. Before the trial, on the 29th, plaintiff in error moved to quash this special venire, on the ground that certain jurors, naming those who had been excused on June 28th, 'were discharged on the second day of the term without the consent of the defendant and without the authority of law.' This motion was overruled.
I. The first assignment of error is that the court erred in not granting the motion to quash the special venire issued and jurors summoned on the 28th day of June, 1899, and discharging six jurors who were drawn on the regular venire to serve for the week or term. No proof was submitted in support of the motion to quash the special venire, and neither the bill of exceptions nor the record entries show facts to sustain the ground upon which the motion was based, viz. that six jurors were discharged without the authority of law. On the contrary, the record entries show that the six jurors named were excused (not discharged) for reasons satisfactory to the court, but the reasons for excusing them are not stated either in the record entries or in the bill of exceptions. Several of the jurors summoned on the special venire objected to sat upon the jury which convicted plaintiff in error, but it does not appear that any objections were interposed to any individual juror. In the case of John D. C. v. State, 16 Fla. 554, this court held that trial courts, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, have the right to excuse a juror, although he may be qualified to serve, and that such an exercise of discretion is not error, even though objected to by the parties to an action, and this statement of the law has been adhered to in subsequent cases. Ellis v. State, 25 Fla. 702, 6 So. 768; Edwards v. State, 39 Fla. 753, 23 So. 537. As it is not made to appear to us that there was an abuse of the judge's discretion in excusing the six jurors, we must presume that they were properly excused (Edwards v. State, supra); and, as it is not claimed that the special venire objected to was improperly issued, if the other jurors were properly excused, the first assignment of error must be overruled.
Plaintiff in error asks us to accept, as proof of the grounds of objection stated in the motion to quash, an affidavit made by her attorney and presented to the court below on the hearing of the motion for a new trial in support of the seventh ground of that motion, which complained that the remarks of the judge mentioned in the affidavit were published in a newspaper, and read by the jury that tried plaintiff in error, which it was claimed had a tendency to influence them to render a verdict of guilty in this case. No assignment of error is based upon this ground of the motion for a new trial, and the affidavit was not used...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mathis v. State
...by an appellate court, unless an abuse of a sound judicial discretion is shown. Edwards v. State, 39 Fla. 753, 23 So. 537; Mims v. State, 42 Fla. 199, 27 So. 865; Williams State (decided at the present term) 34 So. 279. The seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth errors assigned ......
-
West v. State
...Irvin v. State, 19 Fla. 872; Washington v. State, 21 Fla. 328; Doyle v. State, 39 Fla. 155, 22 So. 272, 63 Am. St. Rep. 159; Mims v. State, 42 Fla. 199, 27 So. 865; Long State, 42 Fla. 509, 28 So. 775. Under the circumstances of this case it does not appear that the hat of the deceased, int......
-
Sims v. State
...and it is altogether proper for a trial judge to take the initiative in determining which jurors fail the standard. Cf. Mims v. State, 1900, 42 Fla. 199, 27 So. 865. Moreover, the determination of juror qualifications is a function of the trial judge, whose decisions in this area are largel......
-
Wilson v. State
... ... use the language of this court in Kennard v. State, ... 42 Fla. 581, 28 So. 858, they 'are predicated upon an [47 ... Fla. 124] isolated fact, or only part of the evidence that is ... not conclusive of the merits of the case,' and there was ... no error in refusing them. See, also, Mims v. State, ... 42 Fla. 199, 27 So. 865 ... This ... charge was refused: 'The court further charges you, as a ... matter of law, that the evidence of the witness Adams does ... not show any pledge or pawn of the horse.' It will be ... remembered that the witness Adams had testified ... ...