BENJAMIN F. SQUIRES, 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.
Benjamin Squires was convicted of larceny in Putnam County Circuit Court and appealed by writ of error. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the conviction, rejecting challenges to venue denial, cross-examination regarding prior conviction, and the denial of a new trial motion.
The court affirmed the conviction. The venue denial was proper because Squires presented only uncorroborated affidavit evidence without showing he was prevented from obtaining corroboration. The cross-examination question regarding prior conviction was proper as it sought to impeach credibility. The denial of the new trial motion was proper as the evidence supported the verdict.
“The only evidence of the existence of the facts alleged as grounds to change the venue consists of the uncorroborated affidavit of the plaintiff in error presented with the motion, and no showing was made that he was prevented from securing corroborative evidence by hostile public sentiment.”
Establishes the standard for venue change: uncorroborated affidavits without showing of inability to obtain corroboration are insufficient to require venue change
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSquires was indicted and tried for larceny at the Fall 1899 term of Putnam County Circuit Court. He moved for a change of venue based on unfavorable p…
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 Fair And Impartial Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
Carter, J.:
At the Fall term, 1899, of the Circuit Court of Putnam county, plaintiff in error was tried and convicted upon an indictment found at that term charging him with larceny. From the sentence imposed this writ of error is taken.
I. The first assignment of error questions the propriety of the ruling of the Circuit Court denying the motion of plaintiff in error for a change of venue. That motion w.as based upon the ground that public sentiment in Putnam county was such that he could not secure a fair and impartial trial. The only evidence of the existence of the facts alleged as grounds to change the venue consists of the uncorroborated affidavit of the plaintiff in error presented with the motion, and no showing was made that he was prevented from securing corroborative evidence by. hostile public sentiment. Under these circumstances we are not authorized to interfere with the ruling denying the motion. Shiver v. State, 41 Fla.-, 27 South. Rep. 36.
II. The defendant was sworn as a witness in his own behalf. On cross-examination he was asked by the State Attorney “have you been convicted of larceny?” This question was objected to upon two grounds: First, because it was not properly in cross, as nothing had been asked the witness on direct examination pertain ing to his former conviction of larceny; second, because it compelled the accused to give testimony against himself of such a nature as to bias and prejudice his cause and thereby destroy his credibility before the jury. The question propounded was a proper one, as it sought to obtain an admission affecting the credibility of the witness (Roberson v. State, 40 Fla. 509, 24 South. Rep. 474), and the specific objections urged against it were properly overruled upon the authority of Wallace v. State, 41 Fla.-, 26 South. Rep. 713.
III. Plaintiff in error moved the Circuit Court to grant a new trial upon the ground that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the law and the evidence. The ruling denying this motion is the basis for the last assignment of error. After a careful consideration of all the ¿vidence certified to us in the bill of exceptions we discover nothing that justifies us in saying that the court erred in denying this motion.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Cross v. State, 96 Fla. 768 (Fla. 1928)…ss-examination tends to incriminate him or not, and the State has the right on cross-examination to interrogate him as to whether he has been previously convicted of a criminal offense. Herndon v. State, 72 Fla. 108, 72 So. R. 833; Squires v. State, 42 Fla. 251, 27 So. R. 864; Daly v. State, [*777] 67 Fla. 1, 64 So. R. 358; Hoskins v. State, 70 Fla. 186, 69 So. R. 701. Of course, there are limits beyond which this character of cross-examination cannot be pursued. For instance, where the accused admits the…
-
Fulton v. State, 335 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1976)…It is also established that “evidence of particular acts of misconduct cannot be introduced to impeach the credibility of a witness.” Watson v. Campbell, 55 So. 2d at 541. See also Nelson v. State, 99 Fla. 1032, 128 So. 1 (1930); Squires v. State, 42 Fla. 251, 27 So. 864 (1900); Roberson v. State, 40 Fla. 509, 24 So. 474 (1898); Williams v. State, 324 So. 2d 672 (Fla.App. 4th 1975). When there has been a prior conviction, only the fact of the conviction can be 'brought out, unless the witness denies the…
-
Pittman v. State, 51 Fla. 94 (Fla. 1906)…en he voluntarily offers himself as a witness, to the same extent and with like limitations as to other rvitnesses. Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, text 575, 26 South. Rep. 713, 722; Bryan v. State, 41 Fla. 643, 26 South. Rep. 1022; Squires v. State, 42 Fla. 251, 27 South. Rep. 864; Stewart v. State, 42 Fla. 591, 28 South. Rep. 815; Fields v. State, 46 Fla. 84, 35 South. Rep. 185. As was said in Eldridge v. State, 27 Fla. 162, “The motives, interest, or animus of a witness are not collateral matters, and th…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wallace v. State, 26 So. 713 (Fla. 1899)
- Roberson v. State, 40 Fla. 509 (Fla. 1898)