Garcia v. State
Citations
- 34 Fla. 311
Syllabus
<p>1. Where the judgment of the Circuit Court refusing a motion for change of venue in a criminal case is a plain and palpableabuse of the discretion permitted bylaw in such cases, it is such errólas requires the interference of the appellate court and a reversal of the judgment.</p> <p>2. The evidence offered by the plaintiffs in error on their motion for change of venue, as fully set out in the opinion herein, not being disputed by any evidence upon the part of the State, was. such a showing as necessitated a change of the venue, and the refusal to grant the motion -was error.</p> <p>3. Our statute (R. S. sec. 2918) simply permits the court in criminal cases “to order a view by the jury.” Being a criminal statute it should be strictly construed, and in the absence of any provision as to the manner of making the view, the action of the jury should be confined to a view — i. e., a seeing of and inspection of the premises.</p> <p>4. The statute cited in the preceding head-note does not authorize the examination of witnesses before the jury while they are away from the court house engaged in taking the view ordered by the court. Where there is a county court house in the county, that is the proper place for the trial of criminal cases; and no portion of the trial should be removed to any other place without express authority of law.</p> <p>5. In the absence of legislative provisions describing the mode in which jury views are to be conducted, it is more in consonance •with the theory and methods of judicial trials that the jury-should base their findings solely upon sworn testimony in open court, or by depositions taken as provided by law.</p> <p>'6. The extent to which the Circuit Court may go in ordering a view by a jury in a criminal case is to dire’t a view of the premises, where a crime is supposed to have been committed, by the jury. The defendants and counsel for the respective parties may be permitted to accompany them, and some person selected by the parties,
Judges: Liddon, Mabry
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1902-01-15· cited 68×
- Haynes v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1916-04-28· cited 20×
- Collins v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1967-03-15· cited 19×
- White v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1910-01-15· cited 15×
- Futch v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1969-06-10
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Irvin v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1883-01-15· cited 42×
- Williams v. DickensonSupreme Court of Florida· 1891-06-15· cited 36×
- McNealy v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1879-01-15· cited 28×
- People v. BonneyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1861-07-01· cited 21×
- Murphy v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1893-01-15· cited 16×
- People v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court· 1878-07-01· cited 9×
- Hayward v. KnappSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1875-05-18· cited 8×
- Greeno v. WilsonSupreme Court of Florida· 1891-01-15· cited 6×
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.