JOHN MARTIN AND MART MARTIN, PLAINTIFFS 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.
John Martin and Mart Martin were convicted of larceny of twelve hogs and appealed on two grounds: whether the trial court record showed their personal presence at the motion for new trial hearing, and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdict. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding the record adequately implied their presence and the evidence sufficient.
The court held that the record entry concluding with the language 'to which ruling the defendants except' shows by necessary and reasonable implication that the defendants were personally present when the motion for new trial was ruled upon, which is sufficient. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and that nothing justified reversing the trial court's denial of the motion for a new trial.
“to which ruling the defendants except”
Language in the trial court's record entry that the Supreme Court found sufficient to show by necessary implication that defendants were personally present when the motion for new trial was ruled upon.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Martin, Mart Martin, and Jeff Daniels were tried in DeSoto County Circuit Court in Fall 1899 on an indictment from November 1897 charging them wi…
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 Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
Carter, J.:
At the Fall term, 1899, of the Circuit Court of DeSoto county, plaintiffs in error and one Jeff Daniels were tried upon an indictment found November 2, 1897, charging them with larceny of twelve hogs, the property of Peden Barnhill. Daniels was acquitted but plaintiffs in error were found guilty, and from the sentences imposed sued out this writ of error. Various errors are assigned, several of which have been abandoned by failure to argue them. Those argued raised but two questions: First, whether the record entries are sufficient to show that plaintiffs in error were personally present when their motion for a new trial was ruled upon by the court below; second, whether the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict.
1. The record entries show that plaintiffs in error were personally present in court on-October 25, 1899, when they were arraigned and plead to-the indictment, and that the verdict was rendered on the same day; and they show also-that on October 31st they were present when sentence -was passed upon them. There is nothing to show when the motion for a new trial was filed or argued, but the record entry of the ruling thereon is dated October 30, 1899, and reads as follows: “The foregoing motion for a new trial, etc., came on this day to be heard, and the court being-clear that the last ground of the motion is based on a misapprehension of the charge of the court, the said motion is overruled and denied; to which ruling the defendants except.” If the rule requiring personal presence to be shown by the record applies to the ruling upon a motion for a new trial, the record entry in this case concluding with the language “to which ruling the defendants except,” shows by necessary and reasonable iinplicátion that the defendants were personally present when the motion was ruled upon. This is sufficient. Brown v. State, 29 Fla. 543, 10 South. Rep. 736; Lovett v. State, 29 Fla. 356, 11 South. Rep. 172.
II. The evidence has been carefully considered by us, and we find nothing in it that justifies us in reversing the ruling of the court below denying the motion for a new trial.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ex Parte: Elvin E. Jeffcoat, 109 Fla. 207 (Fla. 1933)…y evidence to the contrary, he will be presumed to 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…
-
Blocker v. State, 60 Fla. 4 (Fla. 1910)
Authorities Cited
- Lovett v. State, 29 Fla. 356 (Fla. 1892)
- Brown v. State, 29 Fla. 543 (Fla. 1892)