COX
v.
STATE
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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
Defendant was convicted and filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The evidence from the trial was not in the record, and …
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 Diligence In Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, after conviction, filed his motion for a new trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence. This appeal is from the judgment overruling this motion. The evidence taken on the trial is not in the record and was not introduced in support of the motion. Every presumption will be indulged in support of the judgment of the lower court, and, indulging this presumption, we may assume that the evidence offered by affidavit in support of the motion was merely cumulative to that offered on the trial.
Again, while defendant's counsel submit an affidavit acquitting counsel of a lack of diligence in the preparation of the case, it is not the duty of attorneys to "hunt up" evidence. The client must furnish the evidence, and he knew the state would attempt to prove the age of the girl to be under 16 years. Nothing is shown by the affidavits sufficiently acquitting defendant of a lack of diligence in this respect. Fries v. Acme W. L. Co., 201 Ala. 613, 79 So. 45.
There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed. *Page 558
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Holstun & Son v. Embry, 124 Fla. 554 (Fla. 1936)…The Supreme Court has no power to consider the weight of the evidence as if the justices were a jury, Pons v. Hart, 5 Fla. 457, nor if the verdict can be reconciled with the evidence. Fla. Trust & Banking Co. v. Consolidated Title Co., 86 Fla. 317, 98 South. Rep. 915. The trial judge being familiar with that rule of appellate decisions, his words indicated that he thought there may be in the evidence sufficient facts to show that the finding of the jury was correct though he might have been unable to discover i…
-
Cary & Co. v. Hyer, 91 Fla. 322 (Fla. 1926)…total of $833.00 # # # . ” Plaintiff in error contends that the judgment so entered is excessive to the extent of the interest upon the value of the automobile included therein. In Florida Trust & Banking Co. v. Consolidated Title Co., 86 Fla. 317, 98 South. Rep. 915, this court prescribed the measure of damages in replevin as follows: “We think the decided weight of authority supports the rule that, in replevin, damages will be the value of the property at the time of taking or unlawful detention, with interest…
-
Nikitas Pavlis v. Atlas-Imperial Diesel Engine Co., 121 Fla. 185 (Fla. 1935)…fendant acquired possession rightfully or wrongfully. See: Section 5329 C. G. L., 3476 R. G. S.; Hughes Trust & Banking Co. v. Consolidated Title Co., 81 Fla. 568, 88 Sou. Rep. 266; Florida Trust & Banking Co. v. Consolidated Title Co., 86 Fla. 317, 98 Sou. Rep. 915. Title to such property is not necessarily involved in replevin. Covington v. Clemmons, 61 Fla. 151, 55 Sou. Rep. 81) though it is sometimes necessary to determine title to the property involved. Belden v. Laing, 8 Mich. 500; Delco Light Co. v. Hutc…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence