Parrish v. State
| Decision Date | 13 June 1925 |
| Citation | 105 So. 130,90 Fla. 25 |
| Parties | PARRISH v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Duval County; James M. Peeler Judge.
T. J Parrish was convicted of assisting a prisoner to escape, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Appellate court will not interfere with method of conducting trial except on clear showing of injustice, or invasion of rights of accused. The method of conducting trials, as to the time of assembling, the recesses of the court, the sending for witnesses, and the introduction of evidence, must be left, in the nature of things, to the sound discretion of the trial court, reasonably exercised, and an appellate court will not interfere unless it clearly and affirmatively appears that some injustice, wrong, or injury has resulted to the accused or that his rights under the law have been invaded.
Continuance of criminal case, on application of state, over objection of accused, is not presumed to be denial of speedy and public trial. One charged with a criminal offense is entitled, under the Constitution, to a speedy and public trial, but the presumption does not obtain that a continuance of the case by the court, upon application of the state and over defendant's objection, is a denial of that right.
Corpus delicti must be established by proof aliunde any confession of accused. Before a person charged with a particular crime can be lawfully found guilty, it is necessary to establish the corpus delicti by proof aliunde any confession of the accused.
Ordinarily court should not admit evidence of guilt until corpus delicti is prima facie established; if confession be admitted prior to establishing corpus delicti, additional proof of corpus delicti, afterward admitted, which would have justified admission of confession, cures such error. Ordinarily a trial court should not permit the introduction of evidence of a defendant's confession or other evidence of guilt until the corpus delicti is first established prima facie by proper proof. Yet, if the confession be admitted prior to such proof, and additional proof of the corpus delicti is afterwards introduced, independent of the confession, which prima facie established the corpus delicti, and would have justified the admission of such confession, the technical error in prematurely admitting the confession will be cured.
Admitting evidence of confession of assisting prisoner to escape, before proving commitment of prisoner, held not error, in view of subsequent proof of commitment; admitting evidence that witness found buttons, used on convict uniforms, in ashes of burned clothing near accused's house, held proper. Certain evidence herein examined, and found to be admissible, when taken in connection with other evidence in the case.
Presumed that commitment of escaped prisoner was in due form prescribed by statute, and that prima facie showing of lawful commitment was made, in absence of contrary showing. The record shows that a certified copy of the original commitment of a convicted prisoner was introduced in evidence, but no copy thereof appears in the transcript. The document was objected to solely upon the grounds that it was not a complete record of the trial and conviction of the prisoner, and that the prisoner held by virtue of the commitment was not sufficiently identified as being the person named therein. The superintendent of the prison farm testified without contradiction that the prisoner held by him was the identical person delivered to him with the original commitment. Held that, in the absence of a showing to the contrary, it will be presumed that the commitment was in due form as prescribed by the statute, and that at least a prima facie showing of a lawful commitment was made, as against the objections interposed.
Any legal evidence from which jury may legitimately deduce guilt or innocence is admissible, if, when taken with other evidence, its relevancy appears. Any legal evidence from which the jury may legitimately deduce guilt or innocence is admissible if, when taken with other evidence in the case, its relevancy appears.
Refusal of new trial for insufficiency of evidence, or because verdict is contrary thereto, will not be reversed, unless preponderance of evidence is against verdict. Where the bill of exceptions discloses sufficient evidence from which the jury might have legally found or inferred all the essential elements of the crime charged, and it does not appear that the jury was influenced by considerations other than the evidence, the order of the trial court, refusing to grant a new trial for insufficiency of the evidence, or because the verdict is contrary to the evidence, will not be reversed, unless, after allowing all reasonable presumptions for its correctness, the preponderance of the evidence against the verdict is so decided as to clearly convince the appellate court that it is wrong and unjust.
McNamee, Wilson & Koester, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.
Rivers Buford, Atty. Gen., and Marvin C. McIntosh, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Plaintiff in error was convicted of the offense of knowingly assisting in the escape from lawful custody of one Camp, the latter a duly committed prisoner of the state of Florida, as defined and prohibited by section 5398, Revised General Statutes of Florida 1920, and to the judgment of conviction takes writ of error.
Soon after the introduction of evidence had been begun at the trial, the state undertook to prove the lawful detention of the prisoner Camp by the oral testimony of the superintendent of the state prison farm. The trial court sustained the defendant's objection to the character of such testimony, upon the ground that the commitment under which the prisoner was held was the best evidence. Thereupon, upon motion of the state, and over defendant's objection, the court passed the trial of the cause until 9:30 o'clock a. m. of the next day, in order to afford the state an opportunity to obtain the requisite commitment from the state capital. This action of the trial court is assigned as error.
The method of conducting trials, as to the time of assembling, the recesses of the court, the sending for witnesses, and the introduction of evidence, must be left, in the nature of things, to the sound discretion of the trial court, reasonably exercised, and an appellate court will not interfere unless it clearly and affirmatively appears that some injustice, wrong, or injury has resulted to the accused, or that his rights under the law have been invaded. Clements v. State, 51 Fla. 6, 40 So. 432; Adams v. State, 55 Fla. 1, 46 So. 152; Clinton v. State, 53 Fla. 98, 43 So. 312, 12 Ann. Cas. 150. See, also, section 2689, Revised General Statutes 1920. One charged with a criminal offense is entitled, under the Constitution to a speedy and public trial, but the presumption does not obtain that a continuance of the case by the court, upon the application of the state, over the defendant's objection, is a denial of that right. Griswold v. State, 77 Fla. 505, 82 So. 44.
It appears that the state had been diligent in preparing for trial. Many witnesses were present, most of them from distant points in the county and elsewhere, all being ready to testify. The ruling of the trial court upon the matter stated developed the necessity for the state to procure as evidence a document then in a distant city, in order to conform to the ruling of the trial court as to the proper manner of proving the corpus delicti. Although a trial court, in ordering the trial temporarily deferred, should exercise a sound and reasonable regard for the rights of the defendant in respect to the attendance of his witnesses and all other matters in the presentation of his defense, there appears, in the order assigned as error, no abuse of the discretion reposed in the trial court. The temporary delay does not appear to have injured or worked any hardship upon the defendant, either in respect to the attendance of his witnesses, or otherwise in the preparation or presentation of his defense. If the latter were the case, a different question might be presented. We find no error in the action of the court upon the state's motion.
Upon resumption of the trial next morning, the trial court, in regulating the order of introduction of the evidence permitted the state to introduce in evidence certain supposed confessions of the accused, and other evidence tending to prove his guilt of the crime charged before the actual arrival and introduction in evidence of the commitment, which the trial court had held to be a requisite element of proof of the corpus delicti. This is assigned as error. Before a person charged with a particular crime can be lawfully found guilty, it is necessary to duly establish the corpus delicti by proof aliunde any confession of the accused. Tucker v. State, 64 Fla. 518, 59 So. 941; Bines v. State, 118 Ga. 320, 45 S.E. 376, 68 L. R. A. 33. There must also be sufficient legal proof of all other elements of the crime charged. Generally speaking, no confession of the accused or other evidence of his guilt is admissible until the corpus delicti has been prima facie established. Hall v. State, 31 Fla. 176, 12 So. 449. In the conduct of the trial, however, the trial court is authorized to regulate the order of the introduction of evidence and the examination of witnesses, and its discretion in such matters will only be interfered with by an appellate court where clearly abused or the rights of the accused clearly have been injuriously affected. In the sound exercise of such discretion,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cross v. State
... ... introduction in evidence of a confession of the accused, the ... corpus delicti need be established only prima facie, though ... its establishment beyond a reasonable doubt is necessary to ... support a conviction. Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, ... 106 So. 479; Parrish v. State, 90 Fla. 25, 105 So ... 130; Lee v. State (Fla.) 117 So. 699 ... The ... defendant also assails chapter 12022, supra, as being ... contrary to constitutional limitations, state and federal ... Statutes ... of the character of chapter 12022, supra, are not a ... ...
-
Nickels v. State
...prima facie sufficient to authorize the introduction of the confession in evidence. Holland v. State, 39 Fla. 178, 22 So. 298; Parrish v. State (Fla.) 105 So. 130; Tucker State, 64 Fla. 518, 59 So. 941. Prior to offering the confession in evidence, the state offered the following testimony ......
-
Swafford v. State
...E.g., Hunt v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 327 So.2d 193 (Fla.1976); Roberts v. State, 94 Fla. 149, 113 So. 726 (1927); Parrish v. State, 90 Fla. 25, 105 So. 130 (1925); Daniels v. State, 57 Fla. 1, 48 So. 747 (1909); Dinter v. Brewer, 420 So.2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Darty v. State, 161 So.2......
-
City of Easley v. Portman
...interchangeably to describe such statements. In Nelson v. State, 372 So.2d 949 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), the court, citing Parrish v. State, 90 Fla. 25, 105 So. 130 (1925), distinguished "confessions," which are complete acknowledgments of a criminal act, from "admissions," which are statements f......