GEORGE WARD, 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 conviction for assault and battery, holding that even if technical errors occurred during the trial, the ample evidence of guilt and lack of infringement on fundamental rights warranted upholding the judgment.
No, the trial court did not commit reversible error. The judgment of conviction will not be reversed for technical errors if the evidence of guilt is ample and no fundamental rights were infringed.
“From an examination of the record it is apparent that there is no harmful error in any ruling made the basis of an assignment of error.”
The court's initial assessment of the alleged trial errors.
Previewing 1 of 4 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge Ward was indicted for assault with intent to murder Clyde Diamond. The jury found him guilty of the lesser offense of assault and battery. Ward…
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
[*384] West, J.
An indictment against George Ward charging him with the offense of assault with intent to murder Clyde Diamond was returned by the grand jury of Santa Rosa County. Upon a trial the defendant was found guilty of assault and battery. To the judgment imposing sentence writ of error was taken.
The several assignments of error are predicated upon rulings admitting evidence offered by the State over the objections of defendant, refusing to give requested charges to the jury and denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
From an examination of the record it is apparent that there is no harmful error in any ruling made the basis of an assignment of error. No benefit would result from a discussion of the assignments of error in detail. They may all be disposed of by application of the familiar rule that a judgment of conviction will not be reversed even if technical errors were committed in rulings on the admissibility of evidence or in charges given or refused, where the evidence of guilt is ample and no fundamental rights of the defendant are infringed. Poyner v. State, 81 Fla. 726, 88 South. Rep. 762; Riggins v. State, 78 Fla. 459, 83 South. Rep. 267; Dixon v. State, 77 Fla. 143, 80 South. Rep. 741; Barker v. State, 76 Fla. 164, 79 South. Rep. 436; Settles v. State, 75 Fla. 296, 78 South. Rep. 287; Milligan v. State, 75 Fla. 815, 78 South. Rep. 535; Smith v. State, 74 Fla. 44, 76 South. Rep. 334. There is ample evidence of the crime for which defendant was convicted to support the verdict. The judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walker Bryant v. State, 89 Fla. 26 (Fla. 1925)…evidence or in charges given or refused, where the evidence of guilt is ample and no fundamental rights of the defendant are infringed. Lewis v. State, 84 Fla. 466, 94 South. Rep. 154; Breen v. State, 84 Fla. 518, 94 South. Rep. 383; Ward v. State, 82 Fla. 383; 90 South. Rep. 157; Poyner v. State, 81 Fla. 726, [*29] 88 South. Rep. 762; Seymour v. State, 66 Fla. 133, 63 South. Rep. 7. The judgment- will be affirmed. Affirmed. Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis and Brown…
-
Ennis v. State, 300 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…ersed where evidence of guilt is ample, unless substantial rights have been violated and injury therefrom is clearly demonstrated. See Matera v. State, Fla.App.3d, 218 So. 2d 180, cert. den. 396 U.S. 955, 90 S.Ct. 424, 24 L.Ed.2d 420; Ward v. State, 82 Fla. 383, 90 So. 157. Such a showing has not been made here. Lastly, appellant contends the trial court erred in imposing a sentence of forty-five years; that such is cruel and unusual punishment under the factual situation of this case. The statutory penal…
-
Chesser v. State, 85 Fla. 151 (Fla. 1923)…ction will not be reversed, even if technical errors were committed- in rulings on the -admissibility of evidence, where the evidence of- guilt is ample and no fundamental rights of the defendant are infringed. (Ward v. State, supra); Ward v. State, 82 Fla. 383, 90 South. Rep. 157; Poyner v. State, 81 Fla. 726, 88 South Rep. 762; McQuagge v. State, 80 Fla. 768, 87 South. Rep. 60; Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 587, 84 South. Rep. 541; Higgins v. State, 78 Fla. 459, 83 South. Rep. 267. The judgment is affirmed.…
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
- Mickens v. Mickens, 75 Fla. 391 (Fla. 1918)
- Settles v. State, 75 Fla. 296 (Fla. 1918)
- Milligan v. State, 75 Fla. 815 (Fla. 1918)
- Pratt Poyner v. State, 81 Fla. 726 (Fla. 1921)
- Smith v. State, 74 Fla. 44 (Fla. 1917)
- Dixon v. State, 77 Fla. 143 (Fla. 1919)
- Riggins v. State, 78 Fla. 459 (Fla. 1919)
- Barker v. The State of Flor'da, 76 Fla. 164 (Fla. 1918)