State Ex Rel. Fuente v. Himes

36 So. 2d 433, 160 Fla. 757, 1948 Fla. LEXIS 856
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJuly 30, 1948
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 36 So. 2d 433 (State Ex Rel. Fuente v. Himes) 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
State Ex Rel. Fuente v. Himes, 36 So. 2d 433, 160 Fla. 757, 1948 Fla. LEXIS 856 (Fla. 1948).

Opinion

*758 ADAMS, J.:

Petitioners seek a writ of prohibition against the respondent alleging disqualification to preside in a case wherein petitioners stand charged with a crime of operating a gambling house. Suggestion was made and denied by respondent as Judge of the Criminal Court of Record where the case was. pending.

The basis of disqualification relates to statements made by respondent in political campaigns in 1936 and 1940 and an incident which took place in open court on June 7, 1948.

As to the disqualification by reason of statements made in 1936 and 1940, we hold against petitioner. This ground of disqualification, if any it was, was not presented within the time provided by law and for that reason we will not hold respondent in error.

The second ground of disqualification relates to a colloquy occurring in open court when it became necessary to grant the state a postponement and reset the case for trial on a later date.

Mr. Fisher is the prosecuting attorney and Mr. Hardee is the defense attorney. Excerpts from the record show:

“BY MR. FISHER: I have to report that the main witness, is not present, your Honor. He has not been served. That is the witness Dinning. The State cannot go to trial without his presence, as the Court well knows.
“BY THE COURT: Are the subpoena witnesses here?
“BY MR. FISHER: I asked for it yesterday. I phoned the' sheriff’s office and left word that I wanted it here this morning.
“BY THE COURT: Could we have all the witness subpoenas, Mr. Broaddus ?
“BY MR. HARDEE: Your Honor, wouldn’t it save time if the Solicitor called his witnesses’ names while we are waiting-on this ?
“BY THE COURT: I would like to see the witness subpoenas first.
“BY MR. FISHER: I left word at the sheriff’s office yesterday afternoon I wanted the return and deputy.
*759 “BY THE COURT: Let’s get him up here.
“BY MR. HARDEE: I don’t believe I caught what your Honor said.
“BY THE COURT: We are going to get the deputy sheriff up here who made the return.
“MR. HARDEE: Who is that?
“MR. FISHER: Williams, I think is his name. I don’t know him.
“THE COURT: Jack, call the other witnesses and see if they are here.” . ..
“THE COURT: Who are the two not here besides Dinning?” ...
“THE COURT: I would like to have them over here. Mr. Hardee, how about the defendants? Are they all here?
“MR. HARDEE: Yes, sir. Will the defendants come up, please.
“THE COURT: Mr. Fisher, do you know anything else about this witness ?
“MR. FISHER: No, sir, except I made a search for him myself, yesterday, I couldn’t find him.
“MR. HARDEE: Counsel for defendant is somewhat in the dark on what’s been going on, your Honor. I would like your Honor to brief us and let us know. Evidently something has been going on that counsel have not been informed of and and I think that we should have the knowledge that the prosecution has and the Judge has.
“THE COURT: No secrets, Mr. Hardee. Just have a seat and you will have a chance to say anything you like.
“BY MR. HARDEE: Something is going on we don’t know anything about.
“THE COURT: Just have a seat.
MR. HARDEE: Don’t you think if your Honor knows something that is going on, that we should know it, too ?
“THE COURT: Just have a seat.
“MR. HARDEE: I think we should be informed of anything the Court knows about, because we don’t have an ex parte hearing.
“THE COURT: This witness, I understand, is a police officer of the City of Tampa ?
*760 “MR. FISHER: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: Well, all I know about it is, Mr. Fisher and Mr. McEwen notified me that this witness hadn’t been served. That’s all I know about it, but I want to find out something more about it. Chief Eddings ?
“CHIEF EDDINGS: Yes, sir.
“MR. HARDEE: Are the proceedings that might go on now, would they be such as to prejudice the jurors ?
“THE COURT: I don’t think so.
“MR. HARDEE: I would like to make the request the prospective jurors go out of the court room, say five or ten minutes, however long it will take.
“THE COURT: I don’t think that is necessary. Chief, what do you know about this ?
“CHIEF EDDINGS: About what, your Honor?
“THE COURT: About this witness, Dinning, who is not here.” . . .
“THE COURT: Just a minute please, Chief, This witness subpoena was issued on May 31, shows that it was received by the Sheriff’s office on the same day. Do you know why he wasn’t served before he left?
“CHIEF EDDINGS: No, sir, I do not. I received my subpoena some time Thursday. I don’t know when the subpoenas were issued or when they were delivered to the sheriff’s office, or when it was served to the sheriff’s office. All I know I can speak for myself, I was served Thursday.
“THE COURT: Do you know where the witness is?” . . .
“THE COURT: When is he due back?
“CHIEF EDDINGS: He is due back Tuesday or Wednesday, next Wednesday morning, I believe it is. This next, coming. He is due back this week sometime, Thursday or Friday. Ten days from the 2nd, that would be the 13th, The 2nd on Wednesday, but he had ten days including that day; due back the 12th. What day is the 12th ?
“THE CLERK: Ten, would be on the 11th.
“CHIEF EDDINGS: But he had -ten days.
“THE CLERK: June 12th would be on Saturday this week.
*761 “CHIEF EDDINGS: That is the day he is due back, eight o’clock Saturday morning.
“THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Anything else, Mr. Fisher you wish to say?
“MR. FISHER: I don’t believe so.
“THE COURT: Now, Mr. Hardee, anything you want to say, you may. To answer your question, they said this witness hadn’t been served. I said we would go into it this morning.

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

Related

Fetzner v. State
219 So. 3d 834 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Camacho v. Kendall Healthcare Group, Ltd.
872 So. 2d 922 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
5-H CORP. v. Padovano
708 So. 2d 244 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1997)
Barwick v. State
660 So. 2d 685 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
Dura-Stress, Inc. v. Law
634 So. 2d 769 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
In re J. I.
47 Fla. Supp. 2d 206 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1991)
State v. Petito
48 Fla. Supp. 2d 189 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1991)
Livingston v. State
441 So. 2d 1083 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1983)
Gray v. State
450 N.E.2d 125 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1983)
State v. Slora
1 Fla. Supp. 2d 26 (Palm Beach County Circuit Court, 1981)
Hayslip v. Douglas
400 So. 2d 553 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Hulme v. Woleslagel
493 P.2d 541 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1972)
State ex rel. Jensen v. Cannon
163 So. 2d 535 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
Orlowitz v. Orlowitz
121 So. 2d 55 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1960)
Ginsberg v. Holt
86 So. 2d 650 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 So. 2d 433, 160 Fla. 757, 1948 Fla. LEXIS 856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-fuente-v-himes-fla-1948.