JOE WILLIAMS, 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.
Joe Williams was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's jury instruction regarding alibi evidence, but the Supreme Court found no such instruction in the record and affirmed the conviction because the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
The court affirmed the conviction, finding no such charge in the record and noting that even if such a charge had been given, no exceptions were taken to it during trial, precluding appellate review. The evidence was ample and clearly sufficient to sustain the verdict regardless.
“that testimony pending to show an alibi was not to be considered unless it established the fact by a preponderance of evidence”
The precise charge Williams claimed the court erred in giving to the jury regarding alibi evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was indicted, tried, and convicted of murder in the first degree at the Spring 1893 term of the Marion County Circuit Court with a recommenda…
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 Appellate Review Of Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
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 the 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Spanish v. State, 72 Fla. 420 (Fla. 1916)…ctness of a portion of the general charge, but as no exception was taken to such portion of the charge either at the time it was given or in the motion for a new trial, such charge is not properly before this court for review. See Williams v. State, 32 Fla. 251, 13 South. Rep. 429, wherein we held as follows: “Where charges given to the jury are [*422] assigned as error they can not be considered unless excepted to in the court below in some one of the modes provided by law.” It follows that the judgment…
-
Dow B. Keigans v. State, 52 Fla. 57 (Fla. 1906)…dwin v. Bryan, 16 Fla. 396, text 399; Reid, Story and Sullivan v. State, 16 Fla. 564; Potsdamer v. State, 17 Fla. 895; Phillips v. State, 28 Fla. 77, 9 South. Rep. 826; McSwain v. Howell, 29 Fla. 248, text 253, 10 South. Rep. 538; Williams v. State, 32 Fla. 251, 13 South. Rep. 429; Williams v. LaPenotiere, 32 Fla. 491, 14 South. Rep. 157; [*75] McCoy v. State, 40 Fla. 494, 24 South. Rep. 485; Pittman v. State, 45 Fla. 91, 34 South. Rep. 88; Bynum v. State, 46 Fla. 142, 35 South. Rep. 65; Parnell v. State,…
-
Ward v. State, 124 Fla. 113 (Fla. 1936)…ent on the validity and sufficiency of the same. It is well settled that objections tp charges cannot be considered unless raised in the court below in one of the modes provided by law. Spanish v. State, 72 Fla. 420, 73 Sou. 230; Williams v. State, 32 Fla. 251, 13 Sou. 429; Bynum v. State, 46 Fla. 142, 35 Sou. 65; Glover v. State, 22 Fla. 493; Stearn , etc., Lbr. Co. v. Adams, 55 Fla. 401, 45 Sou. 847; Steele v. State, 85 Fla. 57, 95 Sou. 299; McSwain v. Howell, 29 Fla. 248; 10 Sou. 588; Frances v. State,…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence