JOE BARNES AND JESSE BARNES, PLAINTIFFS 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.
Joe Barnes and Jesse Barnes were convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting arguments that the verdict and sentence were improperly entered after midnight and that judicial action on Sunday violated common law principles.
The court's jurisdiction was not affected by continuing the term into the following week, as the statute does not fix the term of court but merely directs when it begins and when the next term in another county begins. The Sunday prohibition on judicial action applies only to the daylight hours from sunrise to sunset, not the entire calendar day, and the evidence was sufficient to support conviction for murder in the second degree.
“while a verdict may be received and entered on Sunday, yet it seems that judgment or sentence cannot be entered on that day”
The court addresses the common law rule regarding Sunday restrictions on judicial action, citing Hodge v. State
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs in error were convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. The verdict was received and sentence passed…
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 Second Degree Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
The plaintiffs in error were convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The main assignments of error are placed upon the fact that the verdict was received and sentence passed after midnight of Saturday, about half past two o’clock.
It is urged first that the term of court expired at midnight and that therefore a mistrial should have been ordered. The statute does not fix the term of the court. It merely directs that the term begin on a certain Monday, and that on the Monday succeeding this Saturday a term be held in another county of the circuit. Should, however, the Circuit Judge see fit to continue the Holmes County term into the following week, the jurisdiction of the court would be in no wise affected; the only possibility of embarrassment being that the judge might under the statute be penalized should he fail to appear without sufficient excuse, at the .time set for the opening of the term in the other county.
Bid the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial and imposing the sentence violate the common law maxim that Sunday is dies non jurídicas f
The plaintiffs in error rely upon the statement by this Court in Hodge v. State, 29 Fla. 500, 10 South. Rep. 556, that while a verdict may be received and entered on Sunday, yet it seems that judgment or sentence cannot be entered on that day. In that same case, however, p. 508, there is another senible that the Sunday on which judicial action is forbidden begins with sunrise and ends Avith sunset. Again in Hanley v. State, 50 Fla. 82, 39 South. Rep. 149, Avhile the record did not present the point so as to make a decision necessary, we very plainly intimated that .such Avas the law of this State. It is but a slight step to the declaration that such is the law. In the olden days it Avas difficult to fix the exact time when midnight arrived, Avhile sunrise was of easy observation. Again in holding courts during the daylight those in attendance were kept from public worship and the exhibition of secular’ activity was offensive to those engaged in religious duties. These, and perhaps other considerations, prevented the application of the prohibition to the courts who were unable to finish their serious labors by the midnight hour. The postponement beyond the term of the hearing of a motion for a new trial is largely discretionary. Practically the sole ground to be presented or saved on that motion Avas the sufficiency of the evidence. The laAv fixed rigidly the sentence to be imposed. After seven months, counsel for the plaintiffs in error practically abandons any suggestion of error at the trial other than an insist anee that the evidence does not measure up to murder in the second degree, for it is clear that the refused charges had no sufficient foundation of fact.
There are many contradictions in the testimony, but the State’s case made out a reckless shooting without reasonable excuse or justification, and the judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Merritt, 86 Fla. 164 (Fla. 1923)…ing a bill of exceptions after the term, tío' error in the record proper appearing. It now appears that; the bill of exceptions was authenticated by the trial judge before an adjournment of the term-in which the - trial was had. In Barnes v. State, 68 Fla. 291, 67 South. Rep. 131, it .is held that “under statutory direction that terms of a Circuit Court shall begin on certain Mondays in the several counties, the term-fin one county does not ipsa facto end the "Saturday'at-'midnight preceding the Monday fi…
-
Gillooley v. Vaughan, 92 Fla. 943 (Fla. 1926)…ours from sunrise to sunset. To the casual observer this contention might appear to be sustained by the opinions of this Court in the cases of Hodges v. the State, 39 Fla. 500, 10 Sou. 556; Handley v. State, 50 Fla. 82, 39 Sou. 149; Barnes v. State, 68 Fla. 291, 67 Sou. 131; Higginbotham v. State, 88 Fla. 26. A careful study of these cases, however, will disclose that the question here presented was not raised in any of them. In all of these cases the court was dealing with the question of the au [*953] th…
-
Harrison v. Bay Shore Dev. Co., 92 Fla. 875 (Fla. 1926)…in conditions therein set forth. The statute requires that appeals shall be made returnable on a day certain within certain, periods of time. It has been held by this court that Sunday in this State occupies the status of dies non. Barnes v. State, 68 Fla. 291, 67 South. Rep. 131. [*877] This Court is not open for business and the office of the Clerk is not open for the transaction of Court business on Sunday. We construe that the language of the statute requiring writ of error (which statute also applie…
Authorities Cited
- Green W. Hodge v. State, 29 Fla. 500 (Fla. 1892)
- Hanley v. State, 50 Fla. 82 (Fla. 1905)