Hewitt v. State

Citations

• 43 Fla. 194

Syllabus

<p>1. By tlie common law an accused had. the right to be tried in the county in which the offence was alleged to have been committed, where the witnesses were supposed to be accessible. and whoi-“ lie might have the bene.fit of a good character, if lie had established one there, but if an impartial trial could not be. had In such county it was the practice to change the venue to some other county where such trial could be obtained. The right of tidal in the county where the offence is alleged to have, been committed, when an impartial jury can there he had, is secured to the accused by section II, Declaration of Rights, Constitution of 1885, but it is not the design of this provision to force a tidal in a county where an impartial jury cannot be obtained, as to do so would defeat the greater and more i mportant right of a speedy trial by an impartial jury.</p> <p>2. The statutes in force in this State, in reference to change of venue in criminal cases without the consent of the accused (sections 2928 and 2929, Revised Statutes, and chapter 4394, laws of 1895), authorize the eourt to direct a change of venue when an impartial jury cannot be secured in the county where the offence is alleged to have been committed, arid limiting their meaning to authorize the change without the consent of the accused when it is imposible to secure an impartial jury in the county where the offence was committed, they are constitutional.</p> <p>3. An accused may, under statutes in this State, be convicted as an accessory before the fact to murder in the second degree.</p>