Moore v. State
Citations
- 59 Fla. 23
Syllabus
<p>1. Tbe statute authorizes the appellate court to review by writ of error and bill of exceptions a refusal of the trial court to grant a motion for the continuance of a cause and other matters in pais, but in reviewing such motions the appellate court is governed by established principles of judicial procedure designed to effectuate the provision of the constitution that “right and justice shall be administered without * * * delay.”</p> <p>2. An application for a continuance on tbe ground of an absent witness should state under oath the facts expected to be proven by the witness, where and how the information was obtained, and that the desired witness would testify as stated, and the application should also state facts showing that all reasonable effort has been made to secure the attendance of the witness at the time the application for continuance is made; that he is absent without the consent of the party, directly or indirectly given; that he resides within the jurisdiction of the court; that the testimony is material and not merely cumulative; that the testimony desired can not be given by any available witness; that the applicant reasonably expects to procure the presence of the witness at the future day; that he can not safely go to trial without the testimony of the witness; that the application is made in good faith and not for delay only.</p> <p>3. Motions for a continuance are in the discretion of the trial court, and the action of that court on them will not be reversed unless there has been a palpable abuse of that discretion to the disadvantage of the accused, or whereby his rights may have been jeopardized.</p> <p>4. The rule as to granting continuances are substantially the same in civil and criminal causes, except as modified by the differences in procedure in the two classes of causes; yet affidavits for continuances should be scanned more closely in criminal than in civil cases, because of the superior temptation to delay presenten by the former
Judges: Cockrell, Hocker, Parkhill, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
20 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Griswold v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1919-04-23· cited 41×
- Stinson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1918-11-08· cited 30×
- Barton v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1966-12-28· cited 29×
- Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1983-09-08· cited 22×
- Goree v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1982-04-06· cited 20×
- Holman v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1977-07-06· cited 18×
- Cash v. CulverSupreme Court of Florida· 1960-07-08· cited 18×
- Browne v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1924-12-16· cited 13×
- Adams v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1916-06-27· cited 11×
- State v. BrownDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1960-02-10· cited 7×
- Baldwin v. Lafayette Land Co.Supreme Court of Florida· 1911-06-15· cited 7×
- McCray v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1966-01-06· cited 7×
- Solomon v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1962-02-08· cited 6×
- Drogaris v. Martine's Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1960-01-26· cited 5×
- Hagan v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1913-11-04· cited 5×
- Rogers v. Visioneering Concrete Construction Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1963-07-10· cited 3×
- Pastorius v. WhidbySupreme Court of Florida· 1918-12-20· cited 2×
- Gause v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1972-12-12· cited 2×
- Dunleavy v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1968-12-10
- Mitchell v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1972-09-28
Cites
16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Cook v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-06-15· cited 49×
- Colson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1906-01-15· cited 40×
- Ballard v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1893-01-15· cited 38×
- Clements v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1906-01-15· cited 29×
- Harrell v. DurranceSupreme Court of Florida· 1861-07-01· cited 25×
- Adams v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1908-06-15· cited 25×
- State v. TempleSupreme Court of Missouri· 1906-03-06· cited 25×
- Hicks v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1889-06-15· cited 22×
- Vickery v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1905-06-15· cited 16×
- Reynolds v. SmithSupreme Court of Florida· 1905-01-15· cited 15×
- Roberson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1900-01-15· cited 14×
- In re LambertSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1905-06-19· cited 14×
- Smith v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1904-06-15· cited 12×
- Merrill v. O'BryanWashington Supreme Court· 1908-02-10· cited 9×
- Gass v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1902-01-15· cited 8×
- Owen v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1909-06-15· cited 4×
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.