Ammons v. State

9 Fla. 530
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJuly 1, 1861
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 9 Fla. 530 (Ammons v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ammons v. State, 9 Fla. 530 (Fla. 1861).

Opinion

FORWARD, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

There are fifteen errors assigned in this cause; of these the first ten involve the same question, and will be considered together. They are as follows, viz:

First. The record of the Court in Calhoun Circuit Cou.rt was not such as judgment and sentence could be entered up against prisoner.

Secondly. Because the record did not show a perfect transcript of the proceedings in this case in Ilolmes and Jackson counties.

Thirdly. The record from Holmes county did not embody a copy of the indictment against the defendant.

Fourthly. The orders changing the venue from Holmes to Jackson and from Jackson to Calhoun, do not comply with the statute.

Fifthly. The transcript from Jackson county does not embody the transcript of the record from Holmes county.

Sixthly. It does not contain a copy of the indictment against defendant, or any paper upon which he could be tried, for any offence known to the law.

Seventhly. That the transcript of the record from Jackson county does not set out and contain an affidavit for new trial, a motion to amend the record, a. plea, demurrer, replication, a copy of indictment and exceptions taken, and other proceedings.

Eighthly. The- record of Calhoun county did not contain any indictment or copy of file upon which the prisoner could ■ have been tried or was compelled to answer.

Ninth. It was error to try prisoner upon a paper pnrport[536]*536ing to be an original indictment from Holmes county, and it should not have been read to the jury.

Tenth. That the record is otherwise imperfect, defective, erroneous and unintelligible, and does not give the prisoner the benefit of the proceedings had in his case in the counties of Holmes, Jackson and Calhoun ; that he is unable to avail himself of his exceptions taken in his case in Jackson county, and which were signed and sealed in said Cour-t.

The statute authorizing the change of venue in a criminal case provides that “ the prisoner shall be remanded into the custody of the proper officer, who shall convey him to, and have him imprisoned in the jail of the county where he is to be tried: in all such cases a certified copy of the recognizance taken, and of the record of the case, cmd the proceedings thereon, with all other necessary papers, shall be transmitted to the clerk of the Court in which the trial is to be liad, who, upon receipt thereof, shall issue a venire facias, directed to the ministerial officer of his Court, and any and all the proceedings which maybe had in the trial of such criminal shall be the same as' though the ease had originated in that Court;” “and all such cases so removed shall be tried in •the same manner in the county to which they are removed, as if the offence had been committed and the prosecution originated in the county to which they are so removed.” Thomp. Digest, 525.

In considering the errors, it becomes necessary to give construction to this statute, in. order that it may appear whether it was satisfied and jurisdiction in consequence thereof given to the Court held in the county to which the venue was changed.

' The legality of the order for changing the venue both from Holmes to Jackson and from Jackson to Calhoun, is not questioned; it is, however, urged that the record of the Court was not such as judgment and sentence could be en[537]*537tered upon against the prisoner, and the various defects pointed to in the assignment of errors.

Among them it is contended that the statute required a certified copy of the indictment to be transmitted to the clerk, and that this was necessary to give jurisdiction to the Court to which the venue is changed, and that the original indictment is not a satisfaction of the statute.

There is no doubt but that in strict legal construction, an indictment duly presented to, and received by the Court, is a part of “ the record of the case; ” but the question arises, was this the meaning of the Legislature in the use of those words, and if so, was it the transmission of the copy of the record which gave jurisdiction to the Court, or the order changing the venue 1 It will be observed that the statute, after authorizing the change of venue and prescribing how it shall be done, goes on to say, “ m all such cases a certified copy of the recognizance taken, ctncl of the record of the case, and the proceedings therein, with all other necessary papers, shall be transmitted to the clerk, &c., who, upon receipt thereof, shall issue a venire facias,” &c.

We think the Legislature, in the use of the words “ the record of the case,” meant the mirmtes or entries on the record book of the Court, and thereby did not intend to include a copy of the indictment, which, from the well known practice of our Courts, never is copied on the minutes of the record of the Court, and this view is strengthened from the fact that they, in addition thereto, use the words, “ with all other necessary papers.” What “ other necessary papers ” did they mean? It is clear they meant such other papers as were not entered upon the minutes. Recognizances, if taken in open Court, are always entered upon the minutes of the Court; they therefore had to be certified. This was a necessity provided for, but it was not of necessity to certify a copy of the indictment.

[538]*538The well established policy of all our Courts, is to try the prisoner upon the indictment presented to the Court, and not upon a copy of the indictment. Never is a copy resorted to unless by express provision, and fully authorized and required by law. This practice being so uniform and considered the most correct and salutary, and more consonent with a proper regard to the constitutional provision for presenting an accusation under a criminal charge, that we cannot but consider our Legislature included the indictment as one of the “ other necessary papers.” Under this view of the statute, we think the order of the Court made in Holmes county was pre-eminently correct, and that had not said order directed the sending forward the indictment, it -would have been the duty of the clerk to have sent the same.

The order changing the venue from Jackson to Calhoun is silent as to what papers should be transmitted. The duty, however, of the clerk is prescribed by the statute, and we are to presume he performed his duty Unless the contrary appear. The record shows the order changing the venue, a copy of the recognizance taken, a copy of the record, and the indictment. It is presumed the prisoner was tried on the original as is admitted.

It does not appear from the record that the prisoner, before going to trial, made any suggestions of a diminution of the record transmitted, oi\ made any question of the sufficiency of the transcript, or made application for any paper whatever, nor did he make any objections to going to trial, either in Jackson or Calhoun county.

After the conviction in Calhoun county, and in the motion in arrest of judgment, for the first time it appears the prisoner raises objections to the sufficiency of the record.

In considering these objections and the time when they should have been taken, and whether fatal in error, we are to ascertain whether the Court in Calhoun county, where [539]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hernandez v. State
64 So. 3d 1175 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2011)
Vasilinda v. Lozano
631 So. 2d 1082 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1994)
State v. Gary
609 So. 2d 1291 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)
State v. Erber
560 So. 2d 1255 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
State Ex Rel. Williams v. Coleman
180 So. 360 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
Deeb v. State
179 So. 894 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
State v. Thomas
256 S.W. 1028 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1923)
Coker v. State
93 So. 176 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1922)
Florida Fire & Casualty Insurance v. Hart
75 So. 528 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1917)
Mitchell v. State
45 Fla. 76 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1903)
Rattray v. State
61 Miss. 377 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1883)
Swepson v. Call
13 Fla. 337 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1869)
Collins v. State
13 Fla. 651 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1869)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 Fla. 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ammons-v-state-fla-1861.