ZACK PITTMAN, 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.
Zack Pittman was convicted of fornication following an indictment charging lewd and lascivious cohabitation. He appealed on three grounds: refusal of requested jury charges, giving of an objected charge, and denial of a motion in arrest of judgment. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that two of the three assignments of error were procedurally barred and that the remaining assignment lacked merit.
The court affirmed the conviction. The second and third assignments of error were procedurally barred because charge number four was not properly excepted to at trial, and the motion in arrest of judgment was not properly included in the record as part of the bill of exceptions rather than the record proper. The first assignment of error lacked merit because the first requested charge was confused and misleading, and the valid portion had already been given by the court.
“the long settled rule here is that charges not excepted to in the court below can not be assigned as error”
Establishes that procedural compliance requires exceptions to jury charges at trial to preserve error for appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePittman and Henrietta Wood were indicted and tried for lewd and lascivious cohabitation at the Spring term 1902 of the Jackson County Circuit Court. T…
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 Requested Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
Taylor, C. o
The plaintiff in error, together with one Henrietta Wood, on an indictment charging them with lewd and lascivious cohabitation, were tried and convicted of the crime of fornication at the Spring term, 1902, of the Circuit Court of Jackson county, and from the sentence pronounced upon him-the plaintiff in muor sues out writ of error. The assignments of error are as folloxvs-. 1st. The court erred in refusing the charges one (1) and two (2) asked for by the defendants.
2nd. The court erred in" giving charge No. 4, objected to by the defendants.
3rd. The court ei’red in refusing to grant the motion and arrest of judgment asked for by the plaintiff in error. The second and third of these assignments of error can not be considered here for the following reasons: Charge No. 4, the giving'of which is assigned as the second error, is not shown by the record before us to have been in any manner excejrted to, and the long settled rule here is that charges not excepted to in the court below can not be assigned as error. Coker v. Hayes, 16 Fla. 368; Godwin v. Bryan, Ibid. 396; Story v. State, Ibid. 564; Meinhard Bros. & Co. v. Lilienthal, 17 Fla. 501; Southern Exp. Co. v. Van Meter, Ibid. 783; Stewart v. Mills, 18 Fla. 57; Williams v. State, 32 Fla. 251, 13 South. Rep. 429,
The motion in arrest of judgment, the overruling of which is the third error assigned, is evidenced to. us in the transcript of record only in and by the MU of exceptions. It is also settled here that a motion in arrest of judgment forms part of the record proper, and has no place in a bill of exceptions, and can not be recognized or considered by an appellate court when evidenced to it only in and by a bill of exceptions. Caldwell v. State, 43 Fla., 30 South. Rep. 814; Kelly v. State, 44 Fla. , 33 South. Rep. 235.
The defendants requested the court to give the two following charges: “1st. The question of what you would think about the example that was set by the conduct of the defendants towards each other is not before you, but the question for you to determine is, was the defendants’ conduct toward each other at the time alleged were living together as man and wife or living together as though the marriage relations existed.
2nd. There must be proof o'f at least one illicit intercourse by the defendants and each other.” The refusal of the judge to give both of these instructions was fíne-, cepted to in, on<e general exception, and they are both assigned as error in one general assignment of error. The settled rule here is that where refusals to give two or more requested instructions .stating' separate and distince propositions of law are excepted to by one general exception, or are assigned m masse’ in one general assignment of error, the appellate court will look no further after discovering that any one of the requested instructions si) excepted to or assigned en, masse’ was properly refused. Eggart v. State, 40 Fla. 527, 25 South. Rep. 144; McCoggle v. State, 41 Fla. 525, 26 South. Rep. 734, aud cases, cited. -The two requested instructions state .separate and distinct propositions of law, and we think the .court properly refused the first one of them for the reason that it is confused and misleading, and in effect erroneously took away from the jury any consideration of the question of the example set by the conduct of the accused in their illicit-intercourse; and besides, the valid feature of this charg-e had been -already fully and correctly given in instructions by the court. Having found the first requested instruction to have been pboperly refused, and governed by the rule above announced, we go no further into the consideration of the first assignment of error, but to adjudge that there was no error therein as alleged.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the Circuit Court in said cause is hereby affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maloy v. State, 52 Fla. 101 (Fla. 1906)…43 Fla. 565, 31 South. Rep. 350; Eggart v. State, 40 Fla. 527, 25 South. Rep. 144; Jones v. State, 44 Fla. 74, 32 South. Rep. 793; McCoggle v. State, 41 Fla. 525, 26 South. Rep. 734; Kirby v. State, 44 Fla. 81, 32 South. Rep. 836; Pittman v. State, 45 Fla. 91, 34 South. Rep. 88; Shiver v. State, 41 Fla. 630, 27 South. Rep. 36; Griffin v. State, 48 Fla. 42, 37 South. Rep. 209; Parnell v. State, 47 Fla. 90, 36 South. Rep. 165. The requested instruction numbered one refused by the court was as follows: “In…
-
Collin Smith v. State, 65 Fla. 56 (Fla. 1913)…oes not disclose any objection to this statement, any ruling of the court thereon or any exception thereto, therefore this assignment presents nothing to us for consideration. See Williams v. State, 32 Pla. 251, 13 South. Rep. 429; Pittman v. State, 45 Fla. 91, 34 South. Rep. 88; Gaines-ville & Gulf R. R. Co. v. Peck, 55 Fla. 402, 46 South. Rep. 1019. The sixth assignment is that “The court erred in re [*60] fusing to allow the witness, W. L. Smith, to prove the application for a warrant for Lonnie Herbe…
-
Parnell v. State, 47 Fla. 90 (Fla. 1904)…ed to at the trial. There is no bill of exceptions in the record, so the exception taken to the overruling of the motion for a new trial, one ground of which questioned the propriety of the entire charge, cannot “be considered. See Pittman v. State, 45 Fla. 91, 34 South. Rep. 88, and authorities there cited. That a motion for a new trial, with the ruling of the court [*92] thereon and the exception to such ruling, must be evidenced to this court by a bill of exceptions see McDonald v. State, 46 Fla. 149,…
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
- Gus A. Eggart v. State, 40 Fla. 527 (Fla. 1898)
- Coker v. Hayes, 16 Fla. 368 (Fla. 1878)
- McCoggle v. State, 41 Fla. 525 (Fla. 1899)
- Williams v. State, 32 Fla. 251 (Fla. 1893)
- Stewart v. Mills, 18 Fla. 57 (Fla. 1881)
- Meinhard v. Lilienthal, 17 Fla. 501 (Fla. 1880)
- Robinson v. Aird, 43 Fla. 30 (Fla. 1901)