Skip to main content

Smith v. State

Citations

  • 65 Fla. 56
  • 61 So. 120

Syllabus

<p>1. Assignments of error predicated upon alleged facts and rulings that are not disclosed by the record cannot be considered by an appellate court.</p> <p>2. Where the brief for plaintiff in error contains simply a bare statement that a ruling of the trial court is erroneous, no reasons being given, no principles of law stated and no authorities cited, an assignment of error based upon such ruling will be treated as abandoned for failure to argue the same, unless the error complained of is so glaring or patent that no argument is needed to demonstrate it.</p> <p>3. Where an assignment of error in a criminal prosecution for forgery is based upon the overruling of the ground of objection to a question propounded to State witness on his redirect examination, “we object, that is purely a matter of opinion,” and the record discloses that such witness had testified fully as to all the facts and circumstances concerning such alleged forged instrument with which he was acquainted, both in his direct examination and on the rather lengthy cross-examination to which he was subjected, during which the defendant repeatedly called for expressions of opinion from the witness as to matters connected with such statement, and it is not suggested or pointed out wherein the answer of the winess to the question could have been harmful to the defendant, such assignment will be held to be without merit.</p> <p>4. An assignment based upon an alleged remark or statement made by the trial judge during the progress of a trial cannot be considered by an appellate court where the record fails to show any objection or exception thereto or ruling thereon.</p> <p>5. An assignment based upon the sustaining of an objection interposed by the State to a question propounded by the defendant to a witness is without merit when the record discloses that prior to the interposing of the objection the witness had answered the question and the defendant had received the full benefit thereof, no motion havin

Judges: Cockrell, Hocker, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

8 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.