Skip to main content

Jones v. State

Citations

  • 44 Fla. 74

Syllabus

<p>1. An application for a continuance upon the ground of the absence of a witness must show that the applicant has exercised due diligence to procure the attendance of the witness.</p> <p>2. Denial of a motion for continuance will not be reversed by an appellate court unless there has been a palpable abuse of discretion, clearly and affirmatively shown by the record.</p> <p>3. A statement made in the order of a trial court as to a matter in pais will be presumed to be correct, unless the contrary is made clearly apparent.</p> <p>4. A statement or declaration of a person charged with crime is not rendered inadmissible in evidence against him by the mere fact that it is made after the commission of the crime. If it tends to show a guilty intent it is admissible, for the guilty intent of a party may be shown by his acts, conduct and declarations, before, at the time of, or after the commission of a criminal act.</p> <p>6. The opinion of a witness, except as to the matter regarding which expert testimony is competent is not legitimate evidence as to any matter that may be reproduced before the jury. It is the province of the jury to deduce its own conclusion from facts of common experience, uninfluenced by the opinion of any witness on those facts, especially where such opinion is sought on facts given in the testimony of another witness.</p> <p>6. A question aslsed a non-expert witness, seeking to elicit his opinion as to what must have been the necessary position of the hand and pistol of the person who shot another in a particular manner, where the witness did not see the person who shot, or the hand that held the pistol when it was shot, is properly excluded.</p> <p>7. Where alleged error in giving two or more charges, asserting distinct propositions of law is made the basis of a single ground of a motion for a new trial, alleging generally; ithat the court erred in giving such charges, and excepted to under and by virtue of an -exception to the denial of the motio

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • statute construed to render it constitutional, even if reasonably susceptible of another, unconstitutional interpretation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

11 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.