SAM PARNELL, 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.
Sam Parnell was convicted of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a misdemeanor and sentenced to one year in state prison. He appealed by writ of error, challenging jury instructions and refused jury charges, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, finding that proper procedural requirements were not met and that no legal error occurred.
The court affirmed the conviction, finding that the first, second, and sixth errors based on jury charges could not be considered because they were not excepted to at trial with a bill of exceptions, and the third, fourth, and fifth errors based on refused instructions were without merit because the correct legal principles contained in the requested charges were already covered by the charges actually given.
“These errors can not be considered by this court for the reason that said charges were not excepted 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.”
Establishes that jury charges cannot be reviewed on appeal without a bill of exceptions properly taken at trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceParnell was indicted in fall 1902 in Columbia County Circuit Court for breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a misdemeanor. He was tr…
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
Shackleford, J.
— The plaintiff in error, at the fall term, 1902, of the Circuit Court for Columbia county, was indicted for breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a misdemeanor, and was tried and convicted at the spring term, 1903, of said court, and sentenced to confinement in the State prison at hard labor for a period of one year, and seeks reversal here by writ of error. Six errors are assigned, the first, second and sixth of which are based upon charges given by the court to the jury. These errors can not be considered by this court for the reason that said charges were not excepted 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 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, 35 South. Rep. 72, and authorities cited therein. Plowever, even if we could consider the motion for a new trial in the case at bar it would not avail plaintiff in error for the reason that the only ground thereof relating to the instructions given by the court to the jury is based upon the giving of all the charges. An examination of said instructions so given discloses that some of them were undoubtedly correct, therefore, no further examination of them is required. Eggart v. State, 40 Fla. 527, 25 South. Rep. 144, and authorities there cited. The case of Savannah, Blonda & Western Ry. Co. v. Brink, 44 Fla. 713, 33 South. Rep. 245, referred to by counsel for plaintiff in error, while holding that charges given or refused by the trial court, when properly endorsed and authenticated, may appear in and form a part of the record, also expressly holds that an exception duly taken must be made to appear. The third, fourth and fifth errors assigned are all based upon the refusal by the trial court to give certain requested instructions of the defendant. An inspection of said refused instructions discloses that in so far as they contained correct legal principles they were fully covered by the charges already given by the court, hence no error was committed by the court in refusing to give any of the said requested charges.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the Circuit Court must be affirmed, and it is so ordered; the costs of this appellate proceeding to be taxed against the county of Columbia.
Hocker, Cockrell and Carter, JJ., concur. Taylor, C. J., absent on account of sickness.
Whitefield, J., disqualified, took no part in the consideration of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Pittman v. State, 51 Fla. 94 (Fla. 1906)…tion noted to the refusal to give special charge No. 5 which forms the basis for the thirty-second assignment, therefore, we cannot consider it. See English v. State, 31 Fla, 340, 12 South. Rep. 689; Shepherd v. State, 36 Fla. 374; Parnell v. State, 47 Fla. 90, 36 South. Rep. 165. This brings us to the last ' assignment, which is the [*123] thirty-third and is based upon the overruling of the defendant’s motion for a new trial. We have already considered all the grounds of this motion in passing upon th…
-
Colson v. State, 51 Fla. 19 (Fla. 1906)…e questionable whether or not we can consider them as thus presented. See Savannah, Florida & Western Railway Company v. Brink, 44 Fla. 713, 33 South. Rep. 245; Baggett v. Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co., 45 Fla. 184, 34 South. Rep. 564; Parnell v. State, 47 Fla. 90, 36 South. Rep. 165. Assuming, however, without deciding, that they are properly before us for considertion, suffice it to say that we have given them a careful consideration and find no reversible error therein. The third assignment is based upon…
-
The Jacksonville Elec. Co. v. Adams, 50 Fla. 429 (Fla. 1905)…verruling of a motion for a new trial. These can not be considered (by this court inasmuch as the bill of exceptions does not show any exception to the ruling of the court thereon. McDonald v. State, 46 Fla. 149, 35 South. Rep. 72; Parnell v. State, 47 Fla. 90, 36 South. Rep. 165, and cases cited; Dupuis v. Thompson, 16 Fla. 69, text, 73. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed. Taylor and Parkhill, JJ., concur. Shackleford, C. J., and Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ. concur in the opinion.…
Previewing 3 of 11 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)
- Risden McDonald v. State, 46 Fla. 149 (Fla. 1903)
- Savannah v. Ola Brink, 44 Fla. 713 (Fla. 1902)
- Zack Pittman v. State, 45 Fla. 91 (Fla. 1903)