GEORGE MAY, 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 reversed a conviction for assault with intent to murder, finding that limiting defense counsel's argument to twenty minutes was an unreasonable restriction on the defendant's right to be heard. The court emphasized that while trial courts have discretion to limit argument time, it must be reasonable given the case's complexity and the potential penalty.
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion. Limiting the argument to twenty minutes was an unreasonable deprivation of the defendant's constitutional right to be heard, necessitating a reversal of the conviction.
“But the limitation of the time for argument must of necessity, within reasonable bounds, rest in the discretion of the trial court.”
Establishes the general principle that trial courts have discretion in limiting argument time.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of assault with intent to murder. The trial court limited the closing argument for the defense to twenty minutes. There wa…
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
West, J.
By this writ of error there is brought to this court for review a judgment of conviction upon an information charging assault with intent to murder. Reliance for reversal of the judgment rests first upon assignments which raise the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. There is conflict in the evidence of the person alleged to have been assaulted and of the defendant as to what occurred in the encounter between them, but, on behalf of the State, there is evidence of an assault made by the defendant, accompanied by threats to kill the person assaulted, ample to sustain the material allegations of the information charging the crime. This conflict presented a question for the jury, which, when decided in due course by them, is not proper, under our system, for an appellate court to review. Collinsworth v. State, 82 Fla. 291, 89 South. Rep. 802; Kirkland v. State, 82 Fla. 119, 89 South. Rep. 356; Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217, 85 South. Rep. 685; Brown v. State, 79 Fla. 523, 84 South. Rep. 384; Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175, 79 South. Rep. 634; Messer v. State, 75 Fla. 619, 78 South. Rep. 680; McCoy v. State, 75 Fla. 294, 78 South. Rep. 168.
The time allowed by the court for argument was limited to twenty minutes. Error is assigned upon this ruling and it is urged here that the limitation of the argument of counsel to twenty minutes is an abridgment of defendant’s right to be heard, for which there should be a reversal of the judgment.
The right of an accused in a criminal prosecution to be heard by himself or counsel, or both, cannot be denied him. Sec. 11, Declaration of Rights. But the limitation of the time for argument must of necessity, within reasonable bounds, rest in the discretion of the trial court. This is the general rule. The right may be waived, but when requested, reasonable time must be allowed. The question to be determined is what is reasonable time, and this depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be prescribed. But if it appear that the time for argument is unreasonably limited, such action will be held an abuse of discretion requiring a reversal of the judgment for new trial. This statement of the law finds' general support in the adjudicated cases. McDuffee v. State, 55 Fla. 125, 46 South. Rep. 721; York v. United States, 299 Fed. 778; Samuels v. United States, 232 Fed. 536; Howard v. State, 77 Tex. Crim. 185, 178 S.
W. Rep. 506; McLean v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. Rep. 518, 24 S.
W. Rep. 898; Walker v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. 175, 22 S.
W. Rep. 685; State v. Rogoway, 45 Ore. 601, 2 Ann. Cas. 431; People v. Green, 99 Cal. 564, 34 Pac. Rep. 231; People v. Labadie, 66 Mich. 702, 33 N.
W. Rep. 806; Wingo v. State, 62 Miss. 313 ; Hunt v. State, 49 Ga. 255, 15 Am. Rep. 677; Teague v. Commonwealth, 172 Ky. 665, 189 S.
W. Rep. 908; Childers v. Commonwealth, 161 Ky. 440, 171 S.
W. Rep. 149; State v. Hoyt, 47 Conn. 518, 36 Am. Rep. 89; City of Seattle v. Erickson, 55 Wash. 675, 104 Pac. Rep. 1128; Hendrick v. United States, 2 Okla. Cr. 240, 101 Pac. Rep. 125; Kenninson v. State, 83 Neb. 391, 119 N.
W. Rep. 768; Dixon v. State, 46 Neb. 298, 64 N.
W. Rep. 961; State v. Shores, 31 W. Va. 491, 7 S.
E. Rep. 413; State v. Collins, 70 N. C. 241, 16 Am. Rep. 771; Welch v. State, 156 Ala. 112, 46 South. Rep. 856; Huskey v. State, 129 Ala. 94, 29 South. Rep. 838; Crawford v. State, 112 Ala. 1, 21 South. Rep. 214; Yeldell v. State, 100 Ala. 26, 14 South. Rep. 570.
The penalty, upon conviction of the crime for which defendant was on trial, is not exceeding twenty years’ imprisonment. In many instances this is the equivalent of the life of the accused.
In this case it cannot be said that the facts are complicated, but there are sharp conflicts in the evidence on material issues, the taking of which consumed several hours, there being a number of witnesses testifying both for the State and on behalf of defendant. In this situation, and' in view of the serious nature of the crime charged, we think the full measure of the right to be heard, accorded by the Constitution, was not given when the argument was lim itecl to twenty minutes, and. that the court’s action’ in so limiting the time is such a deprivation as to require a reversal of the judgment.
One of the grounds of the motion for new trial is that the court refused to charge the jury in advance of the argument of counsel. The grounds of the motion are not self-supporting and it does not clearly appear from the transcript of the record that the charge was given after argument of counsel, or that the court was requested to instruct the jury before the argument and exception reserved to his refusal to do so. Smithie v. State, 88 Fla. 70, 101 South. Rep. 276.
The judgment is reversed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis and Browne, J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (28 total)
-
Will Tindall v. State, 99 Fla. 1132 (Fla. 1930)…se serious damage may result and possibly a farce be made of what ought to be an important step in the trial. In fact, it may even constitute reversible error for the trial court to unreasonably limit the time for argument to the jury. May v. State, 89 Fla. 78, 103 So. R. 115. See 16 C. J. 893, Section 2234. Also where the attorney having the opening argument, feigns or only makes a short statement, the opposing attorney may thereupon waive his right to argument and thus deprive his adversary of a reply;…
-
Brown v. State, 894 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2004)…nt regarding a motion for supplemental argument after a postconviction eviden-tiary hearing has closed, matters regarding the length of legal argument and the length of a proceeding generally fall within a trial court’s discretion. See May v. State, 89 Fla. 78, 103 So. 115, 116 (1925) (“[T]he limitation of the time for argument must of necessity, within reasonable bounds, rest in the discretion of the trial court.... No hard and fast rule can be prescribed.”); 75A Am.Jur.2d Trial § 547 (1991) (“The time a…
-
Stockton v. State, 544 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 1989)…about 45 minutes, but on this one I’m not very well prepared so I really don’t know, Judge. I would request an hour. Within reasonable bounds, the setting of time limits for closing argument rests in the discretion of the trial judge. May v. State, 89 Fla. 78, 103 So. 115 (1925). What constitutes a reasonable time depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Pittman v. State, 440 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). This two-day trial involved one charge against one defendant. There were no serious…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 28 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tobe Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175 (Fla. 1918)
- Messer v. State, 75 Fla. 619 (Fla. 1918)
- Smithie v. State, 88 Fla. 70 (Fla. 1924)
- Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217 (Fla. 1920)
- Greely McCoy v. State, 75 Fla. 294 (Fla. 1918)
- McDuffee v. State, 55 Fla. 125 (Fla. 1908)
- Arra Brown v. State, 79 Fla. 523 (Fla. 1920)
- Collinsworth v. State, 82 Fla. 291 (Fla. 1921)