Melbourne v. State
Citations
- 51 Fla. 69
Syllabus
<p>CRIMINAL LAW—CONTINUANCE—SECOND APPLICATION FOR—JURORS—QUALIFICATION OF—MURDER—DEFINI-NITION OF—CHARGES MUST BE IN CONSONANCE WITH FACTS PROVED—EXCEPTIONS.</p> <p>1. Defendants in criminal eases applying for continuances on the ground of the absence of witnesses must in all cases show diligence in procuring the attendance of such witnesses, but where a second or ány subsequent application for continuance is made on the ground of the continued absence of the same witness, extraordinary diligence must be shown to have been exercised in procuring the evidence, else it is not error to refuse the application.</p> <p>2. A talesman who, on his voir (Lire examination, states that he had formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, but that such opinion was not formed from talking with any witness in the case, but from rumor and newspaper reports, that such opinion was not fixed but would yield readily to the sworn evidence in the case and that he felt perfectly free to try said cause and to render a verdict therein according to the evidence at the trial uninfluenced by such previously formed opinion, is a competent juror.</p> <p>3. The right of challenge confers the right to reject, not to select, jurors, and there is no error in sustaining the challenge of the State for cause to a talesman who is an uncle of an intimate friend of the accused who was present with the accused at the time' of the homicide and at a difficulty between the’accused and the deceased a short while prior to the homicide.</p> <p>4. When, the fact that the deceased in a homicide case had a wife is wholly immaterial, irrelevant and impertinent to any issue in the cáse, it is error to permit such fact to be shown in proof, as its only tendency would be to prejudice the defendant with the jury.</p> <p>5. Rulings not excepted to at the trial cannot be assigned as error.</p> <p>6. The following charge is erroneous: “The killing of an officer of the law, when such officer is engaged in
Judges: Cockrell, Hocker, Parkhill, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Singer v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1959-02-13· cited 190×
- Lewis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1979-11-01· cited 53×
- Bates v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1919-12-17· cited 48×
- Hall v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1919-11-13· cited 39×
- Rankin v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1962-06-27· cited 33×
- Arrington v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1970-04-01· cited 26×
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. WallaceSupreme Court of Florida· 1911-01-15· cited 24×
- Landrum v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1920-03-01· cited 22×
- Hathaway v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1958-02-20· cited 21×
- White v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1910-01-15· cited 15×
- Ashmore v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1968-09-10· cited 12×
- Adams v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1916-06-27· cited 11×
- Barrett v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1972-08-31· cited 10×
- Scott v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1971-12-15· cited 9×
- Gibson v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1966-10-04· cited 8×
- Abram v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1970-12-10· cited 2×
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Andrews v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1885-06-15· cited 31×
- Peadon v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-06-15· cited 26×
- Brown v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1898-06-15· cited 22×
- Olive v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1894-06-15· cited 18×
- Edwards v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1897-06-15· cited 18×
- Wilson v. KingIllinois Supreme Court· 1876-09-15· cited 18×
- People v. JocelynCalifornia Supreme Court· 1866-07-01· cited 12×
- Shook v. ThomasIllinois Supreme Court· 1859-01-15· cited 6×
- Birks v. HoustonIllinois Supreme Court· 1872-01-15· cited 6×
- Van Brown v. StateTexas Supreme Court· 1871-07-01· cited 3×
- Eames v. HennessyIllinois Supreme Court· 1859-04-15· cited 2×
- Unsel v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1888-04-28· cited 2×
- People v. LampsonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1886-07-23· cited 1×
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.