HENRY BURNEY, 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 conviction for receiving stolen property. The court addressed two assignments of error concerning the verdict's validity and the defendant's presence during its rendition, finding both issues resolved by the record and a stipulation between the parties.
The court held that the verdict was legally sufficient, as a stipulation between counsel corrected the clerical omission of the foreman's signature. The court also presumed the defendant's presence at the verdict's rendition, given his presence at the trial's commencement and the trial's uninterrupted nature.
“This defect, if any, is shown, however, b'y an agreement of the Attorney-General and the counsel for the plaintiff! in error filed here, t,o be a clerical omission in making up the record, in which it is shown and admitted that the verdict rendered was in fact signed by one of the jurors as foreman of the jury.”
Establishes that a stipulation between counsel corrected a clerical error in the record regarding the verdict's signature.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenry Burney was convicted of buying and receiving stolen property. He appealed, arguing the verdict was not properly presented or filed, and that the…
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.
Taylor, J.:
The plaintiff in error was indicted, tried and convicted at the Spring term, 1893, of the Circuit Court for Leon county, of the charge of buying and receiv ing stolen property, knowing the same to have been stolen. He brings the case here by writ of error, and assigns the following as errors: 1st. The verdict was not found, presented or filed in accordance with law. 2nd.
The record fails to show that the defendant was present at the time of the rendition of the verdict. The only possible irregularity in the verdict, as the same is copied into the record before us, is that it is not signed by anyone as foreman of the jury. This defect, if any, is shown, however, b'y an agreement of the Attorney-General and the counsel for the plaintiff! in error filed here, t,o be a clerical omission in making up the record, in which it is shown and admitted that the verdict rendered was in fact signed by one of the jurors as foreman of the jury. This cures the only •objection that can apparently be urged to the verdict, or to the manner of its rendition and presentation in •court.
As to the second assignment of error, it appears from the record that the trial of the defendant was begun and finished on the same day without any interruption by recess or otherwise; and the record shows •affirmatively-that the defendant was personally present in court at the commencement of the trial, was arraigned and pleaded not guilty; and while the record does not give expression to the fact that he was thus personally present at the rendition by the jury of their verdict, yet the presumption, under the circumstances as disclosed by the record, is, that being personally present at the beginning of the trial, which by the record is shown to have proceeded without interruption up to the rendition of the verdict, he continued ’to be and was presónt during the whole of such, trial. Lovett vs. State, 29 Fla., 356, 11 South. Rep., 172.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCoy v. State, 40 Fla. 494 (Fla. 1898)…ecessary and reasonable implication that defendants were present at particular is fully satisfied by the record entries in this case. Brown v. State, 29 Fla. 543, 10 South. Rep. 736; Lovett v. State. 29 Fla. 356, 11 South. Rep. 172; Burney v. State, 32 Fla. 253, 13 South. Rep. 406. VI. Another assignment of error is that the record does not show that the jury was present during the trial. The record entries show that on March 4, 1898, the jury was duly selected, empanelled and sworn, and [*500] placed in…
-
McCoggle v. State, 41 Fla. 525 (Fla. 1899)…by the record to have existed when the jury-retired, and the jury is shown to- have rendered their verdict on the same day that they retired to consider the case. Palmquist v. State, 30 Fla. 73, 11 South. Rep. 521, and cases cited; Burney v. State, 32 Fla. 253, 13 South. Rep. 406; Irvin v. State, 19 Fla. 872. The eleventh assignment of error is- abandoned here. Finding no error, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.…
-
Ex Parte: Elvin E. Jeffcoat, 109 Fla. 207 (Fla. 1933)…have been present in court during all proceedings. See Irvin v. State, 19 Fla. 872; Brown v. State, 29 Fla. 543, 10 South Rep. 723; Lovett v. State, 29 Fla. 356, 11 South. Rep. 172; Martin v. State, 42 Fla. 194, 27 South. Rep. 865; Burney v. State, 32 Fla. 253, 13 South. Rep. 406; McCoy v. State, 40 Fla. 494, 24 South. Rep. 485; O’Steen v. State, 92 Fla. 1062, 111 So. 725. No merit exists in that ground of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. , The point that petitioner was not “confined and kept s…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lovett v. State, 29 Fla. 356 (Fla. 1892)