Tyson v. State
| Decision Date | 12 April 1924 |
| Citation | 100 So. 254,87 Fla. 392 |
| Parties | TYSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Duval County; James M. Peeler Judge.
J. G Tyson was convicted of having carnal intercourse with an unmarried female of previous chaste character under 18 years of age, and he brings error.
Reversed and new trial ordered.
Syllabus by the Court
Latitude allowed counsel on merits of case in arguments before jury statements in argument before jury neither logical nor germane to subject not in themselves reversible error. Considerable latitude is allowed counsel in their arguments upon the merits of a case before a jury, and statements in such arguments that are neither logical nor germane to the subject do not of themselves constitute reversible error.
Expressions by attorneys in arguments before jury stating personal opinions as to guilt are improper, but not necessarily reversible error. Expressions by attorneys, in their arguments before a jury, as to their personal opinion of guilt, are highly improper, though they do not necessarily constitute reversible error.
Counsel in argument to jury should confine remarks to evidence and legitimate inferences. In the argument of a cause upon its merits before a jury, counsel should confine their remarks to the evidence and the inferences which may be legitimately drawn therefrom.
Rules regulating granting of new trials for newly discovered evidence not inflexible. The rules regulating the granting of new trials on the ground of newly discovered evidence are not inflexible and must, sometimes, bend to meet the ends of justice.
New trial should be granted on discovery of new evidence which might have produced different results. Where the evidence is doubtful as to the material element of the crime for which a defendant is prosecuted, and counsel have used due diligence in the trial of the cause and the preparation of the defense, and after the trial evidence is discovered which is material and had it been produced at the trial would probably have produced a different result, a new trial should be granted on motion.
Edgar W. Waybright, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.
Rivers Buford, Atty. Gen., and M. C. McIntosh, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of the offense of having carnal intercourse with an unmarried female of previous chaste character under the age of 18 years, in violation of chapter 8596, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1921, and brings error.
Counsel for the plaintiff in error contends that a new trial should have been granted because during the argument before the jury the county solicitor said:
'This case is not as serious to the defendant as it is to the little girl, because by a single stroke of the pen the Governor could grant a pardon.'
The court upon counsel's objection 'instructed the county solicitor that he had nothing to do with the question of pardon.'
The county solicitor then said:
The record shows that defendant's counsel objected to the remarks of the county solicitor, 'which objection was overruled and exception noted.' This incident is made the basis of the ninth assignment of error. There was no harmful error in this incident. The statement of the county attorney, while irrelevant, and its correctness somewhat doubtful, at least subject to dispute, cannot be said to constitute an abuse of counsel's privilege in going far afield in what is called the argument. Besides, the court admonished counsel that the matter of a pardon was for another tribunal, which seems to have been about all the court could do under the circumstances. Juries are composed of men of sound judgment and intelligence. At least so the law requires, and it is not to be presumed that they are led astray to wrongful verdicts by the impassioned eloquence and illogical pathos of counsel. The matter is controllable by the trial court in its discretion. See Carter v. State, 68 Fla. 143, 66 So. 1000; Wilson v. State, 47 Fla. 118, 36 So. 580; Sylvester v. State, 46 Fla. 166, 35 So. 142; Putnal v. State, 56 Fla. 86, 47 So. 864.
It is generally understood that the expression by counsel in argument before the jury of personal opinion of guilt is not only bad form, but highly improper, as counsel is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blackwell v. State
...Fink, 131 So. 817, 159 Miss. 372; Bufkin v. State, 134 Miss. 116, 98 So. 455; Jennings v. State, 118 Miss. 619, 79 So. 814; Tyson v. State, 87 Fla. 392, 100 So. 254; v. Schinck, 184 Wis. 661, 200 N.W. 303; Brown v. State, 80 Fla. 741, 86, So. 574; McLeod v. State, 22 Ga.App. 241, 95 S.E. 93......
-
Childers v. State
...1081 (Fla. 2000); Gore v. State, 719 So.2d 1197, 1201 (Fla.1998); Grant v. State, 171 So.2d 361, 365 (Fla.1965); Tyson v. State, 87 Fla. 392, 394, 100 So. 254, 255 (Fla.1924); Adams v. State, 54 Fla. 1, 45 So. 494 (Fla.1907); Cartwright v. State, 885 So.2d 1010, 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Ke......
-
Childers v. State
...1081 (Fla. 2000); Gore v. State, 719 So.2d 1197, 1201 (Fla.1998); Grant v. State, 171 So.2d 361, 365 (Fla.1965); Tyson v. State, 87 Fla. 392, 394, 100 So. 254, 255 (Fla.1924); Adams v. State, 54 Fla. 1, 45 So. 494 (Fla.1907); Cartwright v. State, 885 So.2d 1010, 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Ke......
-
Hall v. Wainwright, 82-195-Civ-Oc.
...personal opinion on the lack of mitigating circumstances in Hall's case might be reversible error under Florida law, see Tyson v. State, 87 Fla. 392, 100 So. 254 (Fla.1954), and even reversible error in an appeal from a federal criminal case, United States v. Corona, 551 F.2d 1386, 1389 (5t......