Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 28 January 1913 |
| Parties | SMITH v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Court of Record, Walton County; D. S. Gillis, Judge.
Collin Smith was convicted of forgery and uttering and passing a forged instrument, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Assignments of error predicated upon alleged facts and rulings that are not disclosed by the record cannot be considered by an appellate court.
Where the brief for plaintiff in error contains simply a bare statement that a ruling of the trial court is erroneous, no reasons being given, no principles of law stated, and no authorities cited, an assignment of error based upon such ruling will be treated as abandoned for failure to argue the same, unless the error complained of is so glaring or patent that no argument is needed to demonstrate it.
Where an assignment of error in a criminal prosecution for forgery is based upon the overruling of the ground of objection to a question propounded to a state witness on his redirect examination, 'We object, that is purely a matter of opinion,' and the record discloses that such witness had testified fully as to all the facts and circumstances concerning such alleged forged instrument with which he was acquainted, both in his direct examination and on the rather lengthy cross-examination to which he was subjected, during which the defendant repeatedly called for expressions of opinion from the witness as to matters connected with such statement, and it is not suggested or pointed out wherein the answer of the witness to the question could have been harmful to the defendant, such assignment will be held to be without merit.
An assignment based upon an alleged remark or statement made by the trial judge during the progress of a trial cannot be considered by an appellate court, where the record fails to show any objection or exception thereto or ruling thereon.
An assignment based upon the sustaining of an objection interposed by the state to a question propounded by the defendant to a witness is without merit, when the record discloses that prior to the interposing of the objection the witness had answered the question and the defendant had received the full benefit thereof; no motion having been made or sustained to strike out such answer.
In treating an assignment of error based upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial, an appellate court will consider only such grounds of the motion as are argued before it.
A refusal of a requested instruction cannot be excepted to in the motion for a new trial.
The refusal of the trial court to grant a new trial for insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, or because the verdict is contrary to the evidence, will not be disturbed, unless, after allowing all reasonable presumptions of 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.
COUNSEL S. K. Gillis, of De Funiak Springs, for plaintiff in error.
Park Trammell, Atty. Gen., and C. O. Andrews, of Tallahassee, for the State.
Collin Smith was convicted under both counts of an information charging forgery and uttering and passing a forged instrument, and seeks relief here by writ of error.
The first assignment is based upon an alleged order of the court in denying a motion to quash the information, but, as such alleged ruling is not disclosed by the record, we cannot consider it. Douberly v. State, 51 Fla. 41, 40 So 675. We pass the second assignment, based upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial, for the present, but shall consider it later. The third assignment is simply repeated and is not argued, hence must be treated as abandoned especially since the error complained of is not so glaring or patent that no argument is needed to demonstrate it. McCall v. State, 55 Fla. 108, 46 So. 321.
The fourth assignment is based upon the overruling of the ground of objection interposed by the defendant to the following question propounded on the redirect examination by the state to W. O. Campbell, a witness introduced by the state: 'Would you judge that the man that wrote that on there wrote that signature?' This assignment is so slightly argued that we might well treat it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carnley v. Cochran, 158
...and the accused took no exception, the error will be deemed waived on appeal (Surrency v. State, 48 Fla. 59, 37 So. 575; Smith v. State, 65 Fla. 56, 61 So. 120), except where the interests of justice would not be served. Kellum v. State 104 So.2d 99 (Fla.Ct.App.3d Hearsay evidence takes on ......
-
Blackwell v. State
...court will consider only such grounds of the motion as are argued.' Lindsey v. State, 67 Fla. 111, 64 So. 501. See, also, Smith v. State, 65 Fla. 56, 61 So. 120; Revels v. State, 62 Fla. 83, 56 So. 416; v. State, 55 Fla. 41, 46 So. 174; Colson v. State, 51 Fla. 19, 40 So. 183. This case inv......
-
Herndon v. State
... ... of D. B. Herndon for the killing of Henry Griffin, and only ... knew of said fact since said trial when told of same by D. B ... Herndon.' ... We ... shall follow our established practice and consider only such ... grounds of this motion as are argued before us. Smith v ... State, 65 Fla. 56, 61 So. 120, and Thomas v ... State, 74 So. 1, decided here at the present term. It is ... strenuously contended that the evidence adduced is not ... sufficient to support the verdict. As we have repeatedly ... 'An ... appellate court should not grant a ... ...
-
Denmark v. State
... ... case orally argued by her counsel on February 1, 1928 ... As to ... Gordon Denmark the assignments of error may be treated as ... 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 ... ...