J. J. LEWIS, 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 criminal conviction, holding that procedural errors do not warrant reversal unless they injuriously affect the substantial rights of the complaining party.
The court held that a judgment should not be reversed for procedural errors unless those errors injuriously affect the substantial rights of the complaining party. Similarly, a judgment should not be reversed based on the verdict not being sustained by the evidence unless there was no substantial evidence to support the finding.
“The judgment should not be reversed or a new trial granted in any ease, civil or criminal, for errors in rulings upon the admission or rejection of evidence, or for errors in giving or refusing charges, or for errors in any other matter of procedure or practice, unless it shall appear to the court from a consideration of the entire cause that such errors injuriously affect the substantial rights of the complaining party.”
This quote establishes the standard for appellate review of procedural errors.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves a criminal conviction where the defendant appealed, likely citing procedural errors or insufficient evidence. The opinion does not d…
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 Plea In Abatement cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
On the authority of Ford v. State, 44 Fla. 421, 33 South. Rep. 301; Davis v. State, 46 Fla. 137, 35 South. Rep. 76; as to the plea in abatement; and of Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22, 54 South. Rep. 458; Goff v. State, 60 Fla. 13, 53 South. Rep. 327; Owens v. State, 65 Fla. 483, 62 South. Rep. 651; Pittman v. State, 82 Fla. 24, 89 South. Rep. 336; Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 586, 84 South. Rep. 541; Johnson v. State, 80 Fla. 61, 85 South. Rep. 155; Reeves v. State, 68 Fla. 96, 66 South. Rep. 432, and other similar decisions as to harmless error of procedure, the judgment of conviction herein should be affirmed.
The judgment should not be reversed or a new trial granted in any ease, civil or criminal, for errors in rulings upon the admission or rejection of evidence, or for errors in giving or refusing charges, or for errors in any other matter of procedure or practice, unless it shall appear to the court from a consideration of the entire cause that such errors injuriously affect the substantial rights of the complaining party. Nor should a judgment be reversed or a new trial granted on the ground that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence, unless it appears that there was no substantial evidence to support the finding, or that the jury were not governed by the evidence in making their finding.
Affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield 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)…la. 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. 466, 94 South. Rep. 154; Breen v. State, decided this term; Boyington v. State, 77 Fla. 602, 81 South. Rep. 890; Padgett v. State, 64 Fla. 389, 59 South. Rep. 946; Barrentine v. State, 72 Fla. 1, 72 South. Rep. 280; Thomas v. State, 73 Fla. 115, 74 Sout…
-
Lindberg v. State, 134 Fla. 786 (Fla. 1938)…ce and the law applicable thereto and there is ample evidence to sustain the verdict, technical errors, if any, in giving or refusing instructions to the jury will not cause the reversal of the judgment, no material errors appearing. Lewis v. State, 84 Fla. 466, 94 Sou. 154; McDaniel v. State, 103 Fla. 529, 137 Sou. 712. For the reasons stated, the judgment should be affirmed and it is so ordered. Affirmed. Whitfield, Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur. Terrell, C. J., dissents.…
-
Walker Bryant v. State, 89 Fla. 26 (Fla. 1925)…n will not be reversed even if technical errors are committed in ruling’s 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. 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 aff…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Owens v. State, 65 Fla. 483 (Fla. 1913)
- Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22 (Fla. 1911)
- Goff v. State, 60 Fla. 13 (Fla. 1910)
- Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 586 (Fla. 1920)
- Ford v. State, 44 Fla. 421 (Fla. 1902)
- Johnson v. State, 80 Fla. 61 (Fla. 1920)
- Davis v. State, 46 Fla. 137 (Fla. 1903)
- Reeves v. State, 68 Fla. 96 (Fla. 1914)
- Pittman v. State, 82 Fla. 24 (Fla. 1921)