Skip to main content

Freeman v. State

Citations

  • 50 Fla. 38

Syllabus

<p>1. Motions to strike the whole of a witness’ testimony should not be granted if any portion of it is admissible.</p> <p>2. In a prosecution upon an. indictment for an assault with intent to commit murder where the allegation is that the wound was inflicted “in the stomach and body,” and the person assaulted testifies that “he shot me in the lower part of my stomach” such testimony should not be excluded on the ground of variance.</p> <p>3. Motions in arrest of judgment reach only siich errors as are apparent on the record proper. Question of variance between the allegation and proofs cannot be considered on a motion in arrest of judgment.</p> <p>4. A motion in arrest of judgment is not the proper remedy for a wrong verdict.</p> <p>5. Where a motion for new trial states that the court erred in refusing to give the jury charges requested by the defendant, the charges so requested and refused, and the exceptions to such refusals, should be set out in a bill of exceptions; and if they are not included in a bill of exceptions except as they are stated in the motion for new trial, they are not properly evidenced to this court; and they cannot be considered here, especially when the motion is denied, since the statements in a motion for new trial are not self-supporting.</p> <p>6. In a prosecution for assault with intent to commit murder where the record gives the name of the sole defendant and recites that the jury “being duly elected, impanelled,, tried and sworn the truth to speak upon the issues joined, •having heard the evidence, the charge of the court and the¡ argument of counsel and having considered their verdict upon their oaths do say, ‘We, the jury, say the defendant is guilty of aggravated assault. So say we all. W, A. Spencer, Foreman,’ ” the form of the verdict is sufficient against objections that it “does not give the name of the defendant, nor state what cause is being tried, nor say what the jury had under consideration, nor that the jury have found a

Judges: Cockrell, Hooker, Parkhill, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.