Olive v. State

Citations

• 34 Fla. 203

Syllabus

<p>1. Jurors stated that they had formed opinions of the guilt or innocence of the accused from haying heard what purported to be a detailed statement of the facts of the killing, but not from the witnesses, and if taken into the jury box would carry in their minds the opinions they had formed, and assuming the evidence to be as detailed to them, they were then ready to-render a verdict, but that they could readily and unhesitatingly render a verdict according to the evidence in the case if taken on the jury, notwithstanding the opinions they then entertained: Held, That they were competent jurors.</p> <p>2. Jurors stated that they could render a fair and impartial verdict according to the evidence; that they had no conscientious scruples against the infliction of capital punishment, but that they would not find a man guilty on circumstancial evidence only in cases where the penalty was death. The court excused the jurors on peremptory challenge of the State: Held, Not to-be error.</p> <p>3. It is not error for the court to charge the jury that the statement of the prisoner is evidence before them, to be allowed such weight, and such only, as they saw fit to give it.</p> <p>4. The trial court has the power during the term of court to amend its record made at the former term so as to speak the truth as to what actually transpired at that term.</p> <p>5. Evidence in this case considered sufficient to sustain the verdict.</p>