Baxley v. State

Citations

• 72 Fla. 228
• 72 So. 677

Syllabus

<p>Appellate Practice—Assertion of Fact in Motion for New Trial is Not Evidence of Such Fact—Appellate Court Cannot Consider Sufficiency of Evidence to Sustain Verdict When There is no Motion for New Trial Questioning its Sufficiency Duly Ruled Upon by the Trial Court and Such Ruling Duly Excepted to—Statute Limiting Time for Making Motion for New Trial in Criminal Case is Mandatory—Remarks by Judge to Jury.</p> <p>1. Remarks by the trial judge during the progress of a trial, though hasty and ill-advised, will not be adjudged to be reversible error, when the court cannot see wherein the defendant could have been injured thereby.</p> <p>2. It is the well settled rule that when there is no other evidence in the record of the truth of an asserted fact than its assertion in a motion for new trial, it cannot be considered by an appellate court.</p> <p>3. The limit of four days’ time from the rendition of the verdict in a criminal case for the making of a motion for new trial as provided by Section 1608 of the General Statutes is mandatory; and when such motion is made after the lapse of such four days the trial judge rules correctly in declining to entertain it.</p> <p>4. In order for an appellate court upon writ of error to review the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict or finding, a motion for new trial upon the ground of its insufficiency should have been duly presented to and acted upon by the trial court, which motion and the order made thereon and the exception taken should be evidenced to the appellate court by a proper bill of exceptions.</p>