Harris v. State

Citations

• 53 Fla. 37

Syllabus

<p>1. A ruling of the trial court, denying a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against tjhe law and the evidence, can only be reviewed in the appellate , court when such motion and the exception to the ruling thereon is evidenced by a bill of exceptions, such motion has no place in the record proper.</p> <p>2. A verdict must be responsive to the charge, and consistent,’ and find everything that is necessary to enable the court to render judgment.</p> <p>3. Under an indictment for receiving stolen goods, knowing same to have been stolen, a verdict of “guilty of receiving stolen goods” is bad, as not responsive to the indictment.</p> <p>4. A motion in arrest of judgment lies only for matter appear ing on the record. It is the proper remedy for a verdict which is upon its face so defective as a matter of record that judgment cannot legally be entered thereon; but when matter dehors the record has to be resorted to for the purpose of showing that a verdict is erroneous, it cannot be reached by motion in arrest of judgment. In the case of McDonald v. State, 46 Fla. 149, 35 South. Rep. 72, this distinction has been overlooked, and upon this guestion of practice, that case is overruled. '</p>