KIRBY L. SANDLIN, 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.
Kirby Sandlin was convicted of aggravated assault after being indicted for assault with intent to commit murder. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that alleged procedural errors in jury selection and evidentiary rulings were harmless where the evidence of guilt was clear and ample.
The conviction is affirmed. The court held that the juror challenge was properly resolved because the statute references time of actual service rather than the term of court, and the juror was excused by the defendant without exhausting peremptory challenges. Technical errors in evidentiary rulings and jury instructions are harmless where evidence of guilt is clear and ample and no fundamental rights were violated.
“A judgment of conviction will not be reversed on a writ of error even if technical errors were committed in rulings on the admissibility of evidence or in charges given or refused or in other matters of procedure, where the evidence of guilt is clear and ample and no fundamental rights of the defendants were violated”
Establishes the harmless error standard that technical procedural errors do not warrant reversal when guilt is clearly established and fundamental rights are not violated.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSandlin was indicted for assault with intent to commit murder and convicted of the lesser offense of aggravated assault. The assault involved a pistol…
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 Assault With Intent To Commit Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
Ón an indictment charging an assault with intent to commit murder, Sandlin was convicted of an aggravated assault and took writ of error. The provision of Chapter 5902, Acts of 1909, that, “it shall be ground for challenge for cause if any person called as a juror has served as a juror at any other term within one year,” has reference to the time of service and not to terms of the court. In this case the person called as a juror had not served within a year, though the term of the court at which he was called may have been convened within a year of his last service as a juror. Besides this, the person so called was excused by the defendant and it does not appear that his peremptory challenges were thereby exhausted to his injury, thus rendering the ruling on the challenge for cause harmless if error. As the defendant was charged with an assault with a pistol, testimony as to whether the victim was at the time otherwise injured; is in this case harmless if error. Other errors, if any, in rulings on testimony and in refusing requested charges, were in view of the charges given and the evidence, immaterial and harmless.
Alleged errors in giving or refusing charges or instructions, and in the admission or rejection of testimony which do not weaken the effect of -the admitted testimony, and which do not reach the legality of the trial itself will not be considered grounds for reversal where the evidence leaves no room for reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt. Hopkins v. State, 52 Fla. 39, 42 South. Rep. 52.
A judgment of conviction will not be reversed on a writ of error even if technical errors were committed in rulings on the admissibility of evidence or in charges given or refused or in other matters of procedure, where the evidence of guilt is clear and ample and no fundamental rights of the defendants were violated, and it appears from the whole record that such technical errors, if any, were not prejudicial to the defendants. Seymour v. State, 66 Fla. 133, 63 South. Rep. 7; Kersey v. State, 73 Fla. 832, 74 South. Rep. 983; Crane v. State, decided at the present term.
Judgment affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Young v. State, 85 Fla. 348 (Fla. 1923)…at upon the whole evidence the verdict is clearly wrong, or that the jury were not governed by the evidence in making-their finding. Johnson v. State, 80 Fla. 61, 85 South. Rep. 155; Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 586, 84 South. Rep. 541; Sandlin v. State, 76 Fla. 368, 79 South. Rep. 714; Crane v. [*365] State, 76 Fla. 236, 79 South. Rep. 806; Kersey v. State, 73 Fla. 832, 74 South. Rep. 983; Seymour v. State, 66 Fla. 133, 63 South. Rep. 7; Shuler v. State, 84 Fla. 414, 93 South. Rep. 672; Lewis v. State, 84 Fla.…
-
Franklin v. State, 120 Fla. 686 (Fla. 1935)…cter, if there be any degree of culpable negligence. While the charge of the court defining culpable negligence was not as full and complete as that which is stated in Cannon v. State, supra, we think that under the rule stated in Sandlin v. State, 76 Fla. 368, 79 Sou. 714, to the effect that alleged errors in instructions are not ground for reversal where the evidence leaves no room for reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt, no reversible error is made to appear. It is contended that the evidence is…
-
Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 586 (Fla. 1920)…ry on the different phases of the evidence as adduced under the issues. Pronounced conflicts in the testimony were settled by the jury. There is ample evidence to support the verdict and harmful error is not made to appear. Sandlin v. [*588] State, 76 Fla. 368, 79 South. Rep. 714; Wooten v. State, 24 Fla. 335, 5 South. Rep. 39; Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22, 54 South. Rep. 458; Johnson v. State, 55 Fla. 41, 46 South. Rep. 174; Bell v. State, 65 Fla. 505, 62 South. Rep. 654; Street v. State, 76 Fla. 217, 79 Sou…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kersey v. State, 73 Fla. 832 (Fla. 1917)
- Hopkins v. State, 52 Fla. 39 (Fla. 1906)
- Seymour v. State, 66 Fla. 133 (Fla. 1913)