JAKE PEELER, 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.
Jake Peeler was convicted of a second offense of selling intoxicating liquor under Florida's local option law and appealed on grounds that the trial court improperly refused four jury charge requests and denied his motion for new trial. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the refused charges were either inapplicable to the evidence or duplicative of charges that were given.
The trial court did not err in refusing the four requested charges because at least one of the charges was inapplicable to the evidence and the substance of the other refused charges was covered by charges that were given to the jury. The verdict was amply supported by positive testimony with no errors of law appearing.
“Where one exception or one assignment of error embraces en masse the giving or the refusal to give several separate instructions, stating distinct propositions of law, such exceptions or assignments of error will not be considered by the appellate court except so far as is necessary to ascertain if any one of the' several instructions thus aggregated was properly given or refused. If any one of the charges was properly given or refused, the assignment of error fails.”
Establishes the procedural rule for reviewing multiple jury charge refusals grouped in a single assignment of error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJake Peeler was convicted in Jackson County, Florida for a second offense of selling intoxicating liquors in violation of the local option law. Peeler…
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 Verdict Contrary To Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
On being convicted for the second offense of selling intoxicating liquors in Jackson County, Florida, in violation of the local option law, Jake Peeler took writ of error, and his counsel contend here that the trial court erred in refusing to give four requested charges and in denying a motion for new trial based on the grounds that the verdict is contrary to the evidence and to the law. The refusals of the court to give the four requested charges were excepted to severally, but the one assignment of error thereon embraces the four charges en masse.
Where one exception or one assignment of error embraces en masse the giving or the refusal to give several separate instructions, stating distinct propositions of law, such exceptions or assignments of error will not be considered by the appellate court except so far as is necessary to ascertain if any one of the' several instructions thus aggregated was properly given or refused. If any one of the charges was properly given or refused, the assignment of error fails. See Maloy v. State, 52 Fla. 101, 11 South. Rep. 791; Ewert v. State, 18 Fla. 36, 37 South. Rep. 331.
One of the refused charges was: “You cannot convict him simply because he may have been previously convicted of a similar charge or upon suspicion; but a conviction must be upon the evidence which you deem worthy of belief beyond a reasonable doubt.” This refused charge even, if correctly framed, is not applicable to the evidence since the defendant admitted his previous conviction for a similar offense, and the testimony was positive as to the unlawful sales of intoxicating liquor by tlie defendant as charged on the second offense, and consequently the evidence did not consist of merely suspicious circumstances. And besides the substance of this charge was in effect covered by other charges given by the court to the jury. Counsel practically admit and it is apparent that the other refused charges were in effect covered by charges given.
The assignment of error based on charges refused is not well taken. As the verdict is amply supported by positive testimony, and no errors-of law appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
Taylor, Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crawford v. State, 70 Fla. 323 (Fla. 1915)…rt the verdict. The tenth assignment of error attacks the entire general charge of the court; it will therefore not be considered except so far as is necessary to ascertain if any one of the several instructions was properly given. Peeler v. State, 64 Fla. 385, 59 South. Rep. 899. The same rule applies to the eleventh assignment which groups in [*340] one assignment the court’s refusal to give nine charges requested by the defendant. Davis v. State, 66 Fla. 349, 63 South. Rep. 847. The general charge of…
-
Mercer v. State, 83 Fla. 555 (Fla. 1922)
-
Brown v. State, 108 So. 842 (Fla. 1926)…ater offering evidence tending to impeach her. This assignment apparently undertakes to attack two ruling of the court below. Under previous decisions of this court, if one of these rulings is sustained, the entire assignment fails. Peeler v. State, 64 Fla. 385, 59 South. Rep. 899. It is contended by the plaintiff in error, that when the trial judge called the witness Ruth Beatrice Johnson, she was called as a witness for the State, and that the court erred in calling her, and then permitting the prosecut…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maloy v. State, 52 Fla. 101 (Fla. 1906)