A. L. HALL, 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 second-degree murder because the appellant failed to provide a properly authenticated bill of exceptions, rendering their assignment of error regarding a motion for new trial unavailing.
No, an appellate court can only consider a motion for a new trial if it is properly incorporated in a bill of exceptions.
“as a motion for new trial can be considered by the appellate court only when it is properly incorporated in a bill of exceptions”
This quote explains the procedural requirement for appealing the denial of a motion for a new trial.
Previewing 1 of 2 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 murder in the second degree. The only assignment of error presented to the appellate court was the denial of a…
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 Second Degree Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, P. J.
This writ of error was taken to a judgment of conviction of murder in the second degree.
The only assignment of error is the denial of a motion for new trial. There is no duly authenticated bill of exceptions in the transcript; and as a motion for new trial can be considered by the appellate court only when it is prop erly incorporated in a bill of exceptions, (the assignment of error is unavailing. Revell v. State, 85 Fla. 402, 96 South. Rep. 156; Fortner v. State, 87 Fla. 198, 99 South. Rep. 553.
No error appears in the record proper, therefore the judgment should be affirmed. See B. F. Lasseter & Co. v. Zapf, 57 Fla. 89, 48 South. Rep. 749; Carter v. Stockton, 60 Fla. 33, 53 South. Rep. 450; Anderson v. Winer & Whaley, 50 Fla. 177, 39 South. Rep. 31; Bardwell v. State, 49 Fla. 1, 38 South. Rep. 511; Jackson v. State, 84 Fla. 646; 94 South. Rep. 505; Granquist v. State, 86 Fla. 32, 97 South. Rep. 205; Lanier v. Shayne, 86 Fla. 385, 98 South. Rep. 71; DeSoto Holding Co. v. Boyer, 85 Fla. 517, 97 South. Rep. 205.
Affirmed.
West and Terrell, J. J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Browne, J-., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Jackson v. State, 84 Fla. 646 (Fla. 1922)
- Granquist v. State, 86 Fla. 32 (Fla. 1923)
- DeSoto Holding Co. v. Boyer, 85 Fla. 517 (Fla. 1923)
- Wilson v. Drumright, 87 Fla. 202 (Fla. 1924)
- Shadrack Bardwell v. State, 49 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1905)
- Anderson v. Winer, 50 Fla. 177 (Fla. 1905)
- Carter v. Stockton, 60 Fla. 33 (Fla. 1910)
- Revell v. State, 85 Fla. 402 (Fla. 1923)
- Lasseter v. Zapf, 57 Fla. 89 (Fla. 1909)
- Lanier v. Shayne, 86 Fla. 385 (Fla. 1923)