Williams v. State

32 Fla. 251
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJune 15, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 32 Fla. 251 (Williams 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
Williams v. State, 32 Fla. 251 (Fla. 1893).

Opinion

Taylor, J.:

The plaintiff in error was indicted, tried and convicted at the Spring term, 1893, of the Circuit Court for Marion county of murder in the first degree with recommendation to mercy, and sentenced to the State prison for life. Upon the overruling of his motion for a new trial below he brings the cause here by writ of error.

The sole ground urged here by the plaintiff in error for a reversal of the judgment and sentence is, that the court below erred in charging the jury: “that testimo-nypending to show an alibi was not to be considered unless it established the fact by a preponderance of evidence.” We have examined the charges given by the court to the jury carefully but fail to find in the record here any such charge, nor anything in any of them that even intimates any such doctrine. But even if there was, we can not find that any of the charges .given by the court were excepted to in any way whatsoever, which, under the well established rule here, would preclude us from considering them.

No exceptions were taken during the trial upon which errors have been assigned, consequently we can not consider any assignment of error based upon alleged erroneous rulings during the progress of the trial to which no exception was taken or noted,. We have carefully considered the entire record and find no error therein that would justify any inteference with [253]*253the judgment and sentence appealed from. The evidence, though conflicting, as to the whereabouts of the defendant at the precise time of the homicide, is ample and clearly sufficient to sustain the verdict found. This being true, it is beyond our province to disturb it.

The judgment and sentence of the court below is, therefore, affirmed.

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

Related

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Hendrickson
212 So. 2d 901 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Thornton v. State
196 So. 842 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1940)
Patrick v. State
187 So. 383 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Teddleton v. State
178 So. 909 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
H. & C. Operating Co. v. Fossum
176 So. 865 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
Reliance Fertilizer Co. v. Davis
169 So. 579 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
Ward v. State
168 So. 397 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
Silver Lake Estates Corp. v. Merrill
163 So. 7 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)
Spanish v. State
73 So. 230 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1916)
Keigans v. State
52 Fla. 57 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1906)
Pittman v. State
45 Fla. 91 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 Fla. 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-fla-1893.