Smith v. State
Decision Date | 13 November 1934 |
Citation | 117 Fla. 458,158 So. 91 |
Parties | SMITH v. STATE. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 26, 1934.
En Banc.
Error to Circuit Court, Orange County; Frank A. Smith, Judge.
Herman Smith was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
H. N. Roth and J. F. Burrow, both of Orlando, for plaintiff in error.
Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Writ of error is to review a judgment of conviction of murder in the first degree without recommendation to mercy.
Plaintiff in error presents two questions in a general way. The first challenges the action of the trial court in overruling his motion for new trial. There was no error in that ruling. The motion is on general grounds and no error is pointed out in support of any ground of the motion.
The second question challenges the action of the trial court in not allowing him to amend his motion for new trial more than four days after judgment so as to include therein the ground of newly discovered evidence.
In extraordinary cases a motion for new trial may be amended after expiration of four days after rendition of the verdict and before hearing on the motion to correct flagrant error in the trial (Kirkland v. State, 70 Fla. 585, 70 So 592), but in this case no such error appeared.
Plaintiff in error alleged the newly discovered evidence to be in the fact that his codefendant, indicted with him, as to whom there was a severance and who had been acquitted after his conviction, would testify in his behalf if he was granted a new trial and stated his grounds thus:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Campbell v. State
...to adopt a statute specifying the number of days to amend a motion for a new trial after filing. 14. See e.g., Smith v. State, 117 Fla. 458, 158 So. 91 (1934); Kirkland v. State, 70 Fla. 584, 70 So. 592 15. Indeed, we could find but scant "legislative" history of any direct relevance regard......
-
Baker v. State
...encourage counsel to neglect to gather all available evidence for a first trial.' 23 Fla.Jur. New Trial § 64 (1959). See Smith v. State, 117 Fla. 458, 158 So. 91 (1934); Herndon v. State, 73 Fla. 451, 74 So. 511 (1917); Mitchell v. State, 43 Fla. 584, 31 So. 242 (1901). The State makes no a......
-
City of Miami v. Bopp
... ... rule, and especially that exception which is generally ... recognized by the courts of this country ... In ... Linsley v. State, 88 Fla. 135, 101 So. 273, 275, we ... 'It ... is upon grounds of public policy that the rule is observed ... that the affidavit, ... ...
-
Walker Fertilizer Co., for Use and Benefit of Walker v. Cole
... ... Rehearing ... Denied Oct. 4, 1940 ... En ... Error ... to Circuit Court, Orange County; M. B. Smith, Judge ... Action ... by the Walker Fertilizer Company, a corporation, for itself ... and for the use and benefit of Rosa Walker, widow ... reason for granting a retrial although it must fall within ... certain bounds enumerated in Dixon v. State, 77 Fla ... 143, 80 So. 741, one of them being that such evidence must be ... relevant to an issue in the case ... We ... think the ... ...