JOHN BUSH, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a murder conviction because the bill of exceptions was not timely filed, rendering it unreviewable. The court emphasized the strict procedural requirements for appellate review.
The court held that it could not consider the bill of exceptions because it was not presented in a timely manner. Therefore, no issues outside of the bill of exceptions could be reviewed.
“It is thus shown affirmatively that the bill of exceptions was not presented in the time prescribed by the order.”
Establishes the factual basis for the court's decision regarding the untimeliness of the bill of exceptions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Bush was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. He filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and was granted thirty day…
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 Verdict Contrary To Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*570] Mb. Justice Raney
delivered the opinion of the court:
The plaintiff in error was convicted at the fall term A. I). 1884, of the Circuit Court of Leon county, of murder in the first degree for killing William Hughes, and sentenced to be hung.
A motion for a new trial, made on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and of newly discovered evidence, was overruled. The order denying this motion was made the eighteenth day of December, of the year mentioned, and allowed the plaintiff in error thirty days in which to perfect his bill of exceptions. The pretended bill of exceptions attached to the record expressly states that it was proposed on the twenty-eighth day of January, A. D. 1885, and after the expiration of the term, and signed by the Circuit Judge on the same day.
It is thus shown affirmatively that the bill of exceptions was not presented in the time prescribed by the order. There is no room in the absence of other facts for a presumption that it was presented within the thirty days.
It cannot be considered by us. This we think is plain from the previous decisions of this court upon bills of exception. Webster vs. Barnett, 17 Fla., 272 ; Potsdamer vs. State, 17 Fla., 895, and other cases.
Ho questions outside of the bill of exceptions are raised, or occur to us upon inspecting the record.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davenport v. State, 94 Fla. 32 (Fla. 1927)…of exceptions must be presented and authenticated within the time prescribed by law, or they do not become a part of the record, even though copied into the transcript, and cannot be considered by the appellate court. 2 R. C. L. 144; Bush v. State, 21 Fla. 569; Washington v. State, 48 Fla. 62, 37 So. 573; Bardwell v. State, 49 Fla. 1, 38 So. 511; Carter v. Stockton, 60 Fla. 33, 53 So. 450; Jackson v. State, 84 Fla. 646, 94 So. 505; Granquist v. State, 86 Fla. 32, 97 So. 205; Lanier v. Shayne, 85 Fla. 212,…
-
State v. Merritt, 86 Fla. 164 (Fla. 1923)…a. 62, 37 South. Rep. 573; Lamb v. State, 50 Fla. 106, 38 South. Rep. 906; Hainlin v. Budge, 56 Fla. 342, 47 South. Rep. 825; Bardin v. L’Engle, 13 Fla. 571; Webster v. Barnett, 17 Fla. 272; Potsdamer v. State of Florida, 17 Fla. 895; Bush v. State, 21 Fla. 569; Myrick v. Merritt, 21 Fla. 799; Rehfield v. Moore, 76 Fla. 378, 80 South. Rep. 52; Montgomery v. State, 54 Fla. 73, 45 South. Rep. 813; Circuit Court Law Rule No. 97. The presumption-obtains that the judgment of the Court was correct and entered i…
-
Hainlin v. Budge, 56 Fla. 342 (Fla. 1908)….” 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. Meginiss, 25 Fla. 589, 6 South. Rep. 169; McGee v. Ancrum, 33 Fla. 499, text 506, 15 South. R…
Previewing 3 of 9 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)
- Webster v. Barnett, 17 Fla. 272 (Fla. 1879)