HORACE RYALS, 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 manslaughter conviction, holding that the exclusion of uncommunicated threats by the deceased was not error and that newly discovered evidence did not warrant a new trial.
The court held that the exclusion of uncommunicated threats was not material error, and the newly discovered evidence was insufficient to warrant a new trial.
“There was no such doubt as to who was the aggressor as to make the exclusion of uncommunicated threats material and harmful error.”
Reasoning for excluding evidence of uncommunicated threats.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe accused, Ryals, was charged with murder and convicted of manslaughter. During the incident, Ryals testified that the deceased initiated the confro…
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 Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
—Ryals was charged with murder and convicted of manslaughter. On writ of error it is contended that the court erred in excluding evidence of threats made by the deceased against the accused that were not communicated to the accused before the homicide ; and that a new trial should have been granted on the showing of newly discovered evidence.
The defendant’s own testimony indicates that he was awaiting the appearance of the deceased and “when he stepped out of the gate and told me to stop and called me a---I raised my gun and fired, and when I fired he fired.” There was no such doubt as to who was the aggressor as to make the exclusion of uncommunicated threats material and harmful error. As the asserted newly discovered evidence was not such as ought to produce on another trial an opposite result on the merits of the prosecution, there was no error in denying a new trial on that ground. Williams v. State, 68 Fla. 88, 66 South. Rep. 424.
The judgment is affirmed.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Herndon v. State, 73 Fla. 451 (Fla. 1917)…as. 940; Gilbert v. State, 61 Fla. 25, 55 South. Rep. 464; Williams v. State, 68 Fla. 88, 66 South. Rep. 424; Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Knowles, 68 Fla. 400, 67 South. Rep. 122; Kirkland v. State, 70 Fla. 584, 70 South. Rep. 592; Ryals v. State, 72 Fla. 38, 72 South. Rep. 369. In these cases will be found a discussion of the rule which we announced in Howard v. State, supra, which we have copied above, and the application thereof to the variant facts and .circumstances a$-shown in such cases. We-would…
Authorities Cited
- Ivey Williams v. State, 68 Fla. 88 (Fla. 1914)