Jones v. State

Citations

• 35 Fla. 289

Syllabus

<p>1. The better practice in the examination of veniremen upo'i their voir dire is to permit the questions to be asked, by the counsel in the case; still there is nothing in the statute upon the subject to prohibit the court from exclusively burdening itself with the entirety of such examination if it sees fit to do so.</p> <p>2. A map was admitted in evidence w thout objection by the defendant, but after it had been admitted he moved to strike it out. The court struck it out partially, and after further reflection, with reasonable promptess, struck it wholly out of evidence: Held, that the evidence not having been objected to, was reeeived by consent, and error can not be predicated upon its re. ceipt, and that a party cannot complain of evidence being stricken out upon his own motion.</p> <p>3. When the evidence upon which it is predicated is stricken out, there is nothing to which cross examination is applicable, and error cannot be founded upon a refusal to allow such cross-examination.</p> <p>■4. A new trial should not be granted merely to afford the defendant an opportunity to show that one of the State’s witnesses has made statements inconsistent with his testimony at the trial.</p> <p>¿5. The rule excluding hearsay evidence has application to affidavits upon motions lor new trials as well as other legal proceedings. It is not sufficient for a defendant in a motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence to. state what was told him by his counsel, as having been told the counsel by some other person. The affidavit of the person who has knowledge of the facts should be offered, or a good reason shown for the failure to offer it.</p> <p><6 A new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence should not be granted upon the unsupported affidavit of the defendant.</p>