Skip to main content

Williams v. State

Citations

  • 53 Fla. 89

Syllabus

<p>1. An application for the postponement of a trial is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and the ruling of such court upon such application will not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless an abuse of this discretion is clearly shown.</p> <p>2. When the trial of a criminal prosecution has been set for a day certain, of which the defendant has been duly informed, and such trial has already been postponed for one day, at the defendant’s request, no abuse of judicial discretion upon the part of the trial court is made to appear in refusing to allow defendant time to prepare a motion for a continuance,- when defendant waits until the case is actually called for trial before making such request, it being also shown that defendant had been afforded ample opportunity to prepare such motion prior to the calling of the case for trial.</p> <p>3. General objections to evidence proposed, without stating the precise grounds of objections, are vague and nugatory, and are without weight before an appellate court, unless the evidence objected to is palpably prejudicial, improper, and inadmissible for any purpose or under any circumstances.</p> <p>4. No error was committed by the trial court in refusing the request of defendant in a criminal prosecution to permit his attorneys to talk to two state witnesses who nad not been called upon to testify when the state had rested its case, especially as said witnesses were introduced by the state in rebuttal.</p> <p>5. Where one of the errors assigned is based upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial, and said motion consists of a number ofgrounds, an appellate court will consider only such grouhds as are argued.</p> <p>6. Evidence examined and found sufficient to support the verdict.</p> <p>7. Applications for new trial upon the ' ground of newly discovered evidence are looked upon by the courts with distrust and disfavor, and are granted only under the following restrictions: (1) The evidence must

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

6 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.