WILLIAM TELFAIR, 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.
William Telfair was convicted a second time in Jackson County Circuit Court of uttering a forged instrument. On writ of error, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the conviction, rejecting various evidentiary and instructional challenges raised in the motion for new trial.
The trial court did not err. The refused instructions were properly rejected because the charge was uttering a forged instrument, not forgery itself. Evidence of the instrument's condition was properly admitted. The trial court's other evidentiary rulings and conduct were not erroneous or constituted proper exercises of discretion.
“If you believe from the evidence that the defendant himself forged the instrument in question, no matter how guilty the evidence shows him to be of uttering it, you must find him not guilty.”
The requested jury instruction that the trial court properly refused because forgery was not the charge being tried; the issue was uttering a forged instrument.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTelfair was charged with uttering a forged instrument. A witness testified about differences in the instrument's condition when issued versus when off…
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
Whitfield, C. J.
Plaintiff in error has for the second time been convicted in the Circuit Court for Jackson County of uttering a forged instrument. The former conviction was reversed. Telfair v. State, 56 Fla. 104, 47 South Rep. 863.
On this writ of error the overruling of the motion for new trial is the only error assigned.
The ground of the motion for new trial that the court erred in refusing to give fourteen different requested instructions containing separate propositions is treated as an assignment en masse and cannot be considered here further than to ascertain if any one of the refused instructions was properly rejected. Kirby v. State, 44 Fla. 81, 32 South. Rep. 836. One of the refused instructions was: “If you believe from the evidence that the defendant himself forged the instrument in question, no matter how guilty the evidence shows him to be of uttering it, you must find him not guilty.” This instruction was properly refused, because the charge against the defendant was uttering a forged instrument, and whether he was guilty of the forgery was not within the issue being tried.
For the same reason there was no error in rejecting pleas and evidence as to a former acquittal of a charge of forgery.
The ground of the motion for new trial that one of the jurors was asleep while a portion of the charge was being given cannot be considered here as the affidavits relating to this ground appear in the transcript outside of the bill of exceptions. Evidence dehors the record in support of a motion for new trial should be incorporated in a bill of exceptions.
A witness testified as to the difference between the alleged forged instrument when it was issued and when offered in evidence before the instrument was filed. As the instrument was filed in evidence there was no reversible error in receiving the testimony as to its former and then condition.
Another paper called by different names introduced to show the obligation for which the forged instrument was given was not improperly admitted in evidence. Its contents showed its relevancy and the name by which it was called was immaterial.
Testimony given on redirect examination is not necessarily subject to the rule governing evidence in rebuttal, and in this case evidence given on redirect was not improperly received.
The action of the court in saying to counsel for the defendant that an instrument in evidence was not a rent note but an evidence of a purchase, and that counsel must not read a part of the instrument and make an argument on it without reading all of it, was not an abuse of discretion calling for a reversal of this judgment.
There is evidence to sustain this the second verdict of guilty on the charge here made, and the record does not disclose errors for which the judgment should be disturbed.
Let the judgment be affirmed.
Shackleford and Cockrell, JJ., concur. Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Melrose Mfg. Co. v. Kennedy, 59 Fla. 312 (Fla. 1910)…imber.” As one of the three requested instructions was rightly refused, ■ the court will not consider the other instructions the refusals to give which were excepted to as a whole. See Gass v. State, 44 Fla. 70, 32 South. Rep. 109; Telfair v. State, 58 Fla. 110, 50 South. Rep. 573. The statute authorizes charges given to be excepted to in a motion for a new trial, but the refusal to give requested instructions must be excepted to at the time. Milton v. State, 40 Fla. 251, 24 South. Rep. 60; Thomas v. Stat…
-
Roberts v. State, 90 Fla. 779 (Fla. 1925)…order. But the assignment of error groups them and does not constitute a clearly and distinctly specific and separately assigned error to the refusal to give each instruction. See Newberry v. State, 26 Fla. 334, 8 South. Rep. 445; Telfair v. State, 58 Fla. 110, 50 South. Rep. 573; Peeler v. State, 64 Fla. 385, 59 South. Rep. 899; Davis v. State, 66 Fla. 349, 63 South. Rep. 847; Koon v. State, 72 Fla. 148, 72 [*785] South. Rep. 673; Hollingsworth v. Norris, 77 Fla. 498, 81 South. Rep. 782; Davis v. State,…
Authorities Cited
- Johnson Kirby v. State, 44 Fla. 81 (Fla. 1902)
- Telfair v. State, 56 Fla. 104 (Fla. 1908)