DANIEL T. LOWE, ALIAS RED LOWE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
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.
Daniel Lowe was convicted of rape in Duval County and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, rejecting his challenges to the trial court's denial of a continuance motion, refusal of requested jury charges, admission of newspaper evidence, and the sufficiency of evidence.
The trial court did not err in denying the continuance because Lowe made no showing that four days was insufficient time to prepare or that he had requested and been denied access to counsel. The requested charges were properly denied because the general charge given fully covered the law. The newspaper was properly admitted in evidence, and the record amply supported the verdict.
“the constitutional guaranty of fair and impartial trial contemplates the benefit of counsel and ample opportunity to prepare for trial, which opportunity is governed by the facts of the individual case”
Establishes the constitutional standard for adequate time to prepare a defense and the role of facts in determining sufficiency
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLowe was indicted and tried for rape in Duval County on October 4, 1926. He was appointed counsel only four days before trial and was closely guarded …
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 Admission Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Daniel T. Lowe was indicted, tried and convicted of the crime of rape in Duval County, Florida. The trial took place October 4, 1926, the verdict was without recommendation, so the death penalty was imposed. Lowe took writ of error to this Court and seeks reversal on the ground, (1) that the trial court erred in denying his motion for continuance, (2) refusal of the trial court to give charges requested by defendant, (3) the admission in evidence of a certain newspaper found in defendant’s possession when he was arrested, (4) in sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and (5) denial of defendant’s motion for new trial.
The motion for continuance was predicated on the showing that only four days elapsed from the date of the appointment of counsel to represent Lowe to the date of his trial, and that during said time he was so closely guarded that counsel could not see him privately and did not have sufficient opportunity to prepare his defense.
It is true that under our system of jurisprudence the constitutional guaranty of fair and'impartial trial contemplates the benefit of counsel and ample opportunity to pre pare for trial, which opportunity is governed by the facts of the individual case. Anderson v. State, 92 Fla. 477, 110 So. 250; Christie v. State, decided August 1, 1927. The motion for continuance is devoid of any showing of facts or circumstances such as was shown in the Anderson and Christie cases, that would indicate that four days was not ample time to prepare for the trial of this cause. It was the duty of the jailor or those having the defendant in custody to make provision for him to be seen and consulted by counsel, but no showing is made of a request or demand for such provision and a refusal thereof. No error was, therefore, committed in denying the motion for continuance.
We think the charges requested by defendant were properly denied because the general charge given by the court fully covered the law of the ease. The newspaper found in possession of defendant was properly introduced in evidence and the entire record amply supports the verdict below.
The judgment of the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, must be and is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Brown, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Strum, J., absent because of illness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hysler v. State, 132 Fla. 209 (Fla. 1938)…. Crosby, supra, and. authorities therein cited.” We think the requested charges or instructions to the jury were properly denied by the lower court because the general charge given by the court fully covered the law of the case. See Lowe v. State, 95 Fla. 81, text p. 83, 116 Sou. Rep. 240; Helton v. State, 93 Fla. 232, 111 Sou. Rep. 635; Pennington v. State, 91 Fla. 446, 107 Sou Rep. 331. We fail to find error in the instructions or charges given or the refusal to give the requested charges. The ground…
-
Olive v. State, 131 Fla. 548 (Fla. 1938)…rosby, supra, and authorities therein quoted.” We think the charges or instructions to the jury, considered in the light of other charges given, that there was no error committed in this connection on the part of the lower court. See Lowe v. State, 95 Fla. 81, text 83, 116 So. 240. We fail to find error in the instructions or charges given and assigned as error. The bill of exceptions shows the following proceedings: “During the argument of Mr. Martin, counsel for defendant, the following statement was…
-
Lacey Moore v. State, 124 Fla. 332 (Fla. 1936)…entitled to a continuance of the case. What was said by this Court in the opinion in the case of Bollard v. State, 31 Fla. 266, 12 So. 865, is applicable to the case at bar and on authority of the opinion and judgment in the case of Lowe v. State, 95 Fla. 81, 116 So. 240, the judgment here should be affirmed. It is so ordered. Affirmed. Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.…
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
- Anderson v. State, 92 Fla. 477 (Fla. 1926)