EDDIE SMITH, (ALIAS EDDIE COX,) PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Eddie Smith was convicted of murder in Leon County Circuit Court in 1883. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction because Smith's bill of exceptions was improperly prepared—it was not signed during the trial term and no special order extending the deadline had been obtained, making it insufficient to present the trial facts for appellate review.
The bill of exceptions is invalid and insufficient for appellate review because it was not signed during the trial term and no special order had been made extending the time to prepare it, as required by statute and court rules. The conviction is affirmed.
“It shall be the duty of the Judges of the Circuit Courts of this State, upon the trial of any person or persons charged with crime or a misdemeanor in said court, to sign and seal, upon request, any bill of exceptions taken during the progress of the cause and tendered to the court”
Establishes the statutory requirement that bills of exceptions must be taken and signed during trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEddie Smith (alias Eddie Cox) was indicted for murder in Leon County Circuit Court in December 1883. He pleaded not guilty and was tried at the same t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bill Of Exceptions cases and more on FLexlaw
Mr. Justice VanValkenburgh
delivered the opinion of the court.
At the December term of the Circuit Court held in and for the county of Leon, in the year 1883, the plaintiff in error, Eddie Smith, alias Eddie Cox, was indicted for the ci’ime of murder. Having plead not guilty, he was tried at the same term of the court and found guilty. Counsel for prisoner made a motion for a new trial, which motion was refused by the court, as appears by the minutes of the court in the record. Counsel for defendant subsequently procured a writ of error to this court. What is called a bill of exceptions is embodied in the record dated the tenth day of January, 1884, the court having adjourned sine die on the 24th day of December, 1883, and no order extending the time having been asked for or made. The certificate of the judge holding the court is in the following language: “ The court does now sign and seal the foregoing as the bill of exceptions in said cause on this 10th January, 1884, when it is first presented, but cannot sign-it as of the day when it should have been presented, to wit: on the 24th day of December, 1883, when the court adjourned sine die, because no application was made to tlu court before its final adjournment for any time to -perfect an appeal or to prepare a bill of exceptions.
“ Signed and sealed this January 10,1884.
[Seal] “D. S. Walker, Judge.”
In the record there is no exception taken to any ruling of the court, signed by the Judge, which of itself would make a bill of exceptions.
The statute of this State in respect to the duty of the Judges of the Circuit Court in the matter of granting bills of exceptions, is as follows: “ It shall be the duty of the Judges of the Circuit Courts of this State, upon the trial of any person or persons charged with crime or a misdemeanor in said court, to sign and seal, upon request, any bill of exceptions taken during the progress of the cause and tendered to the court, Provided,” &c.
The ninety-seventh rule of Circuit Court Rules, provides as follows:
“ The bill of exceptions shall be made up and signed during the term of the court, at which the verdict is rendered or trial had, unless by special order further time is allowed. In case such special order is made, it shall be entered in the minutes, and in making up the bill of exceptions the fact that such an order was made shall be mentioned therein, or shall otherwise appear in the record.”
In this case no bill of exceptions “ was taken during the progress of the cause,” as provided by statute, nor was any order made under the rule by which “ further time is allowed.” There is no exception properly taken in the record aside from the bill of exceptions, and there is no bill of exceptions as known to the law.
In the case of Price & Wife vs. Sanchez, 8 Fla., 136, this court decides that it would not reverse a case when the facts are not presented by a bill of exceptions, and this rule has been adhered to by this court continuously. Broward vs. State, 9 Fla., 422; Barden vs. L’Engle, 13 Fla., 571, 602; Potsdamer vs. State, 17 Fla., 895.
The judgment must be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davenport v. State, 94 Fla. 32 (Fla. 1927)…by writ of error. Unless the statutes and the rules governing the preparation and authentication of bills of exceptions are complied with, the attempted bill of exceptions is a nullity and cannot be considered by the appellate court. Smith v. State, 20 Fla. 839; Myrick v. Merritt, 21 Fla. 799; Picket v. Bryan 34 Fla. 38, 15 South. Rep. 681; Jacksonville St. R. Co. v. Walton, 42 Fla. 54, 28 South. Rep. 59. It is the duty of the plaintiff in error to have the bill of exceptions properly prepared as the rules…
-
Hainlin v. Budge, 56 Fla. 342 (Fla. 1908)…term of the court at which the trial is had, unless by special order further time is allowed.” See Bardin v. L’Engle, 13 Fla. 571; Robinson v. Hartridge, 13 Fla. 501; Webster v. Barnett, 17 Fla. 272; Pottsdamer v. State, 17 Fla. 895; Smith v. State, 20 Fla. 839; Bowden v. Wilson, 21 Fla. 165; Greely v. Percival, 21 Fla. 428; Bush v. State, 21 Fla. 569; Willingham v. State, 21 Fla. 761, text 784; Myrick v. Merritt, 21 Fla. 799; Temple v. Fla. Land & Immigration Co., 23 Fla. 59, 1 South. Rep. 333; Lewis v. M…
-
The Jacksonville St. R.R. Co. v. Walton, 42 Fla. 54 (Fla. 1900)…ually occurred below, we would be justified in striking such bill from the transcript. It is quite certain that if the bill is not made in compliance with the law and rules governing the same, it will not be considered by this court. Smith v. State, 20 Fla. 839; Myrick v. Merritt, 21 Fla. 799. It is equally certain that the truthfulness of a bill of exceptions settled and signed by the trial judge and made part of the record on appeal as provided by statute cannot be questioned in the appellate court, on m…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gottschalk Potsdamer v. State, 17 Fla. 895 (Fla. 1880)
- John W. Price & Wife v. Venancio Sanchez, 8 Fla. 136 (Fla. 1858)
- Broward v. The State, 9 Fla. 422 (Fla. 1861)
- Bardin v. L'Engle, 13 Fla. 571 (Fla. 1869)