ED MADDOX, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a first-degree murder conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for continuance and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a continuance, and the evidence presented was ample to sustain the verdict.
“An application for a continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the ruling thereon will not be disturbed by the appellate court unless an abuse of judicial discretion therein to the disadvantage of the complaining party is made to clearly appear.”
This quote establishes the standard of review for decisions on motions for continuance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was convicted of first-degree murder. He appealed, contending that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a continuanc…
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 Cumulative Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of murder in the first degree and took writ of error. It is 'Contended here that error was committed in denying a motion for a continuance and that the verdict is not supported by the evidence.
An application for a continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the ruling thereon will not be disturbed by the appellate court unless an abuse of judicial discretion therein to the disadvantage of the complaining party is made to clearly appear. Webster v. State, 47 Fla. 108, 36 South. Rep. 584.
The affidavit on which the application was based states that an absent witness “was an eye witness to the murder” and does not state what the absent witness would testify to. There was an eye witness to the homicide who did testify and it does not appear that the absent witness who was outside of the house could have seen the fatal shot fired in the house, therefore his testimony could at best have been merely cumulative, it not appearing that it would have contradicted the testimony of the eye witness who testified. Error is not made to appear in the order denying a continuance.
The testimony is ample to sustain the verdict, and as no error of law appears the judgment is affirmed.
Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Cockrell and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 135 Fla. 90 (Fla. 1938)…n to the injury of the party against whom it was exercised. See Ward v. State, 83 Fla. 311, 91 So. 189; Yarborough v. State, 94 Fla. 143, 114 So. 237; Jacques v. State, 86 Fla. 137, 97 So. 380; Hall v. State, 70 Fla. 48, 69 So. 692; Maddox v. State, 69 Fla. 695; 69 So. 20; Webster v. State, 47 Fla. 108, 36 So. 584; Denham v. State, 22 Fla. 664; Clinton v. State, 53 Fla. 98, 43 So. 312, 12 Ann. Cas. 150; Jerry v. State, 99 Fla. 1330, 128 So. 807. It is next contended that reversible error occurred by permi…
-
Sanford v. State, 90 Fla. 337 (Fla. 1925)…e for reversal of the judgment, unless it is clearly shown that there has been a palpable abuse of discretion to the manifest injury of the party against whom it has been exercised. Jacques v. State, 86 Fla. 137, 97 South. Rep. 380; Maddox v. State, 69 Fla. 695, 69 South. Rep. 20; Hagan v. State, 66 Fla. 268, 63 South Rep. 443. The second question, embraced in several assignments, is that there was error in the selection of the trial jury. Before a jury was finally selected and sworn, it was necessary, to…
-
Diehl v. State, 117 Fla. 816 (Fla. 1935)…acques v. State, 86 Fla. 137, 97 South. Rep. 380; Pittman v. State, 51 Fla. 94, 41 South. Rep. 385; 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 509. • It is also true that applications for continuance are addressed to the sound discretion of the court. See Maddox v. State, 69 Fla. 695, 69 South. Rep. 20; Clinton v. State, 53 Fla. 98, 43 South. Rep. 312; 12 Ann. Cas. 150; Webster v. State, 47 Fla. 108, 36 South. Rep. 584; Ballard v. State, 31 Fla. 266, 12 South. Rep. 865; Williams v. State, 53 [*824] Fla. 89, 43 South. Rep. 428; H…
Authorities Cited
- Webster v. State, 47 Fla. 108 (Fla. 1904)