Douglass v. State

Citations

• 53 Fla. 27

Syllabus

<p>1. Where the count in an information upon which a party is convicted is intended to stand alone, and it is not “so vague, indistinct and indefinite as to mislead the accused and embarrass him in the preparation of his defense or expose him after conviction or acquittal, to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense,” it is sufficient.</p> <p>2. It is not a good ground of objection to the count in an information upon which a party was convicted that the persons who were material witnesses for him were joined as accessories in the said count — -especially when they were called by him and testified fully in his behalf.</p> <p>3. Where the charges given by the trial judge are unobjectionable as far as they extend, it is not a ground of objection to them that they do not cover certain phases of the case which the accused thinks is material to his defense. His proper course is to request instructions upon those phases of the case.</p> <p>4. In determining the propriety of a given charge, all the charges and instructions should be considered, and if when so considered they fairly present the law of the case in such manner as not to be misleading, no reversible error has occurred.</p> <p>5. The trial court commits no error in refusing to permit a question to a witness on cross-examination which has no apparent relevancy to the issue.</p> <p>6. ' The' trial court commits no reversible error in refusing to allow the accused, upon objection by the state, to introduce evidence, which if it had been introduced would not have been of any avail to the accused.</p> <p>7 The evidence examined and found sufficient to sustain the verdict.</p> <p>8, The sentence in this case is found defective under the rule laid down in Thompson v. State, 52 Fla.113, 41 South Rep. 899, and therefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a proper sentence</p>