W. E. SMITH, 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.
W. E. Smith was convicted of carnal intercourse with an unmarried female under 18 and sentenced to six years in prison. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction because Smith failed to properly authenticate the bill of exceptions and instructions, preventing meaningful appellate review of the evidentiary and instructional errors claimed.
The appellate court could not review the claimed errors because the bill of exceptions was not properly authenticated and there was no reliable proof of which instructions were refused or how they were amended. The judgment of conviction must be affirmed due to the failure to properly present the errors for appellate review.
“From the transcript we may conjecture that a proposed bill of exceptions was presented to, and filed by, the trial judge, but there is nothing from which we may even surmise that the bill was authenticated or even considered by him, and its contents cannot be taken as true.”
Establishes that without proper authentication of the bill of exceptions, the appellate court cannot rely on its contents to review claimed evidentiary errors.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceW. E. Smith was convicted in the Criminal Court of Record for Duval County of carnal intercourse with an unmarried female under the age of eighteen ye…
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 Sufficiency Of Evidence Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
W. E. Smith was convicted in the Criminal Court of Record for Duval County of carnal intercourse with an unmarried female under the age of eighteen years and sentenced to the State prison for a period of six years.
There are no errors assigned upon the record proper, the assignments being confined to the evidence and the charges of the court.
From the transcript we may conjecture that a proposed bill of exceptions was presented to, and filed by, the trial judge, but there is nothing from which we may even surmise that the bill was authenticated or even considered by him, and its contents cannot be taken as true. We do not attempt therefore to question the sufficiency of the evidence.
Subsequent to the filing of the transcript there has been transmitted to this court under the seal of the trial court certain instructions and the certificate of the clerk that they are true copies of those granted and given and also of the court’s general charge. Upon this paper the plaintiff in error argues the refusal of the court to instruct, and amending certain instructions before giving them. There is no guide whereby we may ascertain wherein the instructions were amended, and assuming without deciding that we may under some circumstances reverse for refusal to instruct without authentication of the evidence, yet we must first know that the instruction complained of was refused and we have not the proof before us.
We may add that the crime here involved has, since the decision in Walden v. State, 50 Fla. 151, 39 South. Rep. 151, been made a felony.
None of the errors assigned being properly before us it follows that the judgment must be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford, J., concur. Taylor, Hocker and P'arkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.