WILL MCCUNE, 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.
Will McCune was convicted of robbery in Hillsborough County and appealed by writ of error. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, finding that venue was properly proven through references to landmarks and localities in Port Tampa City, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdict.
Venue was properly proven under Florida law where evidence contains references to various localities and landmarks at or near the scene of the crime known to or probably familiar to the jury from which they could reasonably conclude the offense was committed in the county charged. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdict.
“Where the evidence does not expressly locate the crime as having been committed in the county charged in the indictment, but there are in the evidence references to various localities and landmarks at or near the scene of the crime known by or probably familiar to the jury and from which they may have reasonably concluded that the offence was committed in the county alleged, it is sufficient proof of venue.”
Establishes the controlling rule for proving venue in Florida criminal cases without express location evidence
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcCune was tried and convicted in June 1899 in the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County for robbery allegedly committed on May 18, 1899. Th…
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 Proof Of Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
Carter, J.:
Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted at the June term, 1899 of the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough county, upon an information charging him with robbery, alleged to have been committed in Hillsborough county on May 18, 1899, and from the sentence imposed sued out this writ of error.
I. The fifth and eighth’assignments of error relate to alleged ruling's of the court excluding testimony offered by plaintiff in error, and the seventh relates to an alleged ruling of the court permitting an attorney other than the County Solicitor to assist in the prosecution, to examine witnesses and to make the concluding argument to the jury without being sworn as assistant State’s counsel. As to these assignments it is sufficient to say that the rulings upon which they are based do not appear from the transcript of the record, otherwise than by an assertion of the facts in the motion for a new trial. There is nothing in the bill of exceptions to show that the testimony mentioned in these assignments was offered and rejected, or that the attorney mentioned was engaged in the prosecution of the case, or that the plaintiff in error took an exception to any'ruling during the trial. We can not regard the statement of facts in the motion for a new trial as evidence. Garner v. State, 31 Fla. 170, 12 South. Rep. 638.
II. The other assignments of error aré based upon the ruling denying the motion for a new trial, and in support of such assignments it is contended that the venue was not proven, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.
The testimony shows that the offence was commited in Port Tampa City, and various localities and landmarks in Port Tampa City are referred to as being near the place where the of-fence was committed. The rule in this State regarding proof of venue is declared in Duncan v. State, 29 Fla. 439) 10 South. Rep. 815, to be as follows: Where the evidence does not expressly locate the crime as having been committed in the county charged in the indictment, but there are in the evidence references to various localities and landmarks at or near the scene of the crime known by or probably familiar to the jury and from which they may have reasonably concluded that the offence was committed in the county alleged, it is sufficient proof of venue. Andrews v. State, 21 Fla. 598; Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 184, 17 South. Rep.
559. Under this rule, while there was no positive evidence that the offence was committed in Hillsborough county, or that Port Tampa City is in that county, we think the proof of venue was sufficient. We have given careful consideration to the evidence relating to the charge against plaintiff in error and are unable to say that it is of such a character as to' authorize us to reverse the ruling denying the motion for a new trial.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lowman v. State, 80 Fla. 18 (Fla. 1920)…e, known by or probably familiar to the jury, and from which they may have reasonably concluded that the offense was committed in the county alleged, it is sufficient proof of venue. Duncan v. State, 29 Fla. 439, 10 South. Rep. 815; McCune v. State, 42 Fla. 192, 27 South. Rep. 867; Leslie v. State ,35 Fla. 184, 17 South. Rep. 559; Smith v. State, 29 Fla. 408, 10 South. Rep. 894; Andrews v. State 21, Fla. 598; Bryan v. State, 19 Fla. 864; Hopkins v. State, 52 Fla. 39, 42 South. Rep. 52; 16 C. J. 769. If th…
-
Fogler v. State, 96 Fla. 68 (Fla. 1928)…than by a mere recital in the motion for a new trial. Finalyson v. State, 46 Fla. 81, 35 So. R. 203; Baxley v. State, 72 Fla. 228, 72 So. R. 677; Young v. State, 70 Fla. 211, 70 So. R. 19. See also Blocker v. State, 105 So. R. 316; McCune v. State, 42 Fla. 192, 27 So. R. 867; Weightnovel v. State, 46 Fla. 1, 35 So. R. 856. Furthermore, so far as the record discloses, all that the defendant asked at the time of the incident was granted, the Court at the time instructing the jury to disregard the language…
-
Shep Kennedy v. State, 140 Fla. 124 (Fla. 1939)…bond. It appears that the jury was justified, from the evidence, in finding that the crime or offense was committed in Escambia County, Florida. See Lowman v. State, 80 Fla. 18, 85 So. 166; Duncan v. State, 29 Fla. 439, 10 So. 815; McCune v. State, 42 Fla. 192, 27 So. 867; Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 184, 17 So. 559; Smith v. State, 29 Fla. 408, 10 So. 894; Andrews v. State, 21 Fla. 598; Bryan v. State, 19 Fla. 864; Hopkins v. State, 52 Fla. 39, 42 So. 52; 16 C. J. 769. It is next contended that reversible…
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
- Andrews v. State, 21 Fla. 598 (Fla. 1885)
- Duncan v. State, 29 Fla. 439 (Fla. 1892)
- Garner v. State, 31 Fla. 170 (Fla. 1893)
- Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 184 (Fla. 1895)