Skip to main content

Pittman v. State

Citations

  • 51 Fla. 94

Syllabus

<p>1. Chapter 5132 of the Laws of 1903, prescribing the requisites to be complied with by parties charged with crime in applications for the procurement of witnesses for their defense at the cost of the county, is not in conflict with or violative of either Section 11 or. Section 14 of the declarar tion of rights of the State Constitution of 1885. And, when the cost of the procurement of such witnesses is initiatorily proposed to be thrown upon the county, a sound judicial discretion is vested in the trial judge to determine whether or not the statutory requirements have been properly compiled with, and also to determine the bona tides of such application, and an appellate court will not disturb the action of the trial judge upon such application, unless an abuse of this judicial discretion is clearly made to appear.</p> <p>2. Application under Chapter 5132 of the Laws of 1903, for the procurement of witnesses, at the cost of the county, for the defense of parties charged with crime, should be seasonably made at the earliest reasonable opportunity, and not withheld until the case is actually called for trial.</p> <p>3, The sixth amendment to the Federal Constitution has reference only to powers exercised by the government of the United States, and not to those of the States.</p> <p>4. In criminal as well as in civil cases an application for a continuance is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and the denial of such a motion will not be reversed by an appellate court, unless there has been a palpable abuse of this judicial discretion, which must he clearly and affirmatively made to appear in the bill of exceptions, the rule being that motions for a continuance in criminal cases are to be even more closely scanned than in civil cases, because of the greater temptation to delay.</p> <p>5. Where there are assignments of error in a criminal case which are not argued, but merely repeated and insisted upon in the brief of plaintiff in error, an a

Judges: Cockrell, Hocker, Parkhill, Shackleford, Tavlor, Whitfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

38 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

42 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.