JULIUS M'RAE, 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.
Julius M'Rae was convicted of murder in the first degree with a mercy recommendation. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for continuance, no improper jury selection, and no reversible errors in the trial court's jury instructions or evidentiary rulings.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance because M'Rae was ably represented and given ample opportunity for defense. The jury selection process did not injure M'Rae because none of his objected-to jurors served, and no objectionable jurors were selected after his peremptory challenges were exhausted. The exclusion of testimony about what others said was immaterial and harmless. The jury instruction on the alibi burden was not prejudicial because it properly informed the jury that if the alibi raised a reasonable doubt of M'Rae's presence at the crime, acquittal was required.
“the accused was in fact ably represented and given ample opportunity to make his defense, the denial of a continuance will not cause a reversal of the judgment”
Establishes that lack of preparation time is not grounds for reversal when the defendant received adequate representation and opportunity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM'Rae was charged with murder in the first degree. At trial, the State presented evidence that M'Rae stated he thought the deceased had caused M'Rae a…
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 Alibi Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam
— Julius McRae was convicted of murder in the first degree with a recommendation to mercy and took writ of error. A motion for a continuance, based largely on the al leged inability of the accused to secure counsel and to prepare his defense in the time allowed him, was denied.
No abuse of discretion by the trial court appears; and as the accused was in fact ably represented and given ample opportunity to make his defense, the denial of a continuance will not cause a reversal of the judgment.
The action of the court in excusing talesmen and in holding others to be qualified jurors does not appear to have injured the accused, as none of the jurors objected to by the accused served on the jury, and although it does appear that the defendant exhausted his statutory number of peremptory challenges, it does not appear that any objectionable jurors were selected after the defendant’s challenges were exhausted. The accused had a right to an impartial jury, but was not entitled to any particular persons as jurors.
At the trial it was shown by the State that the defendant said he thought the deceased had caused defendant and others-with him to be arrested for gambling, and the defendant was not permitted to show that others with him had stated that the deceased had caused their arrest. The object was to make it appear that the others who were arrested and not the defendant here had said the deceased caused them to be arrested.
This was immaterial since it made no difference what the others had said if the defendant had said he thought the deceased caused their arrest.
The court charged the jury that “the defendant has set up an alibi; and the burden of proving it is on him, but he is not bound to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and if upon the whole case the testimony raised a reasonable doubt that the defendant was present when the crime was committed, he should be acquitted.”
This charge was not prejudicial or burdensome to the defendant, since its meaning is that if the asserted alibi raises a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s presence at the commission of the crime he should be acquitted. The only burden upon the defendant was to meet the testimony as to the defendant’s guilt by raising a reasonable doubt that he was present when the crime was committed.
The evidence is entirely circumstantial, but it points strongly to the defendant’s guilt, and the jury could reasonably and lawfully have found the verdict on the evidence adduced.
This being so and no errors of law appearing, the judgment should be and is hereby affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur;
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Leavine v. State, 109 Fla. 447 (Fla. 1933)…40 Sou. Rep. 183. The right of peremptory challenge is a right to reject, not a right to select. 1 Thompson on Trials (2 Ed.) Sec. 43; Melbourne v. State, 51 Fla. 69, 40 Sou. Rep. 189; Ammons v. State, 65 Fla. 166, 61 Sou. Rep. 496; McRae v. State, 62 Fla. 74, 57 Sou. Rep. 348; [*456] Penton v. State, 64 Fla. 411, 60 Sou. Rep. 343; Blackwell v. State, 101 Fla. 997, 132 Sou. Rep. 468. There is nothing in the record tending to show that in drawing the námes from the jury box of men to serve for the trial…
-
Young v. State, 85 Fla. 348 (Fla. 1923)…defendant can demand if he has not been compelled to exhaust one of his peremptory challenges in excusing a venireman unqualified to serve and has. no unused peremptory • challenges left when the panel is formed. See 16 R. C. L. 291; McRae v. State, 62 Fla. 74, 57 South. Rep. 348. The McRae case definitely holds that the action of the court in holding a juror to be qualified over defendant’s objection works no injury to the accused if the objectionable venireman does not serve, even though the accused ex…
-
Penn v. State, 574 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1991)…e challenge was overruled. Young v. State, 85 Fla. 348, 354, 96 So. 381, 383 (1923). Accord Trotter v. State, No. 70,714 (Fla.1990); Floyd v. State, 569 So. 2d 1225 (Fla.1990); Pentecost; Rollins v. State, 148 So. 2d 274 (Fla.1963); McRae v. State, 62 Fla. 74, 57 So. 348 (1912). The United States Supreme Court recently echoed Young’s reasoning and conclusions in Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 108 S.Ct. 2273, 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988). Penn relies on Moore v. State, 525 So. 2d 870 (Fla.1988), and Hill v. Stat…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence