L. F. SMITH, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for possessing intoxicating liquor, finding that the appellate record was insufficient to review the defendant's claims of error.
The court held that it could not review the assignments of error related to the denial of the motion for a new trial and the sufficiency of the evidence because the bill of exceptions did not include all the evidence presented to the jury. The motion in arrest of judgment was without merit.
“The record shows upon its face that all the evidence submitted to the jury was not included in the bill of exceptions. Therefore, this Court is not advised as to what was before the circuit court and can not say that error was committed in denying the motion for a new trial.”
Reasoning for not being able to review the denial of the motion for a new trial.
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 in circuit court for unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor, charged as a second offense. The defendant appealed, raisi…
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 Motion In Arrest Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Buford, J.
In this case the defendant was convicted in the circuit court of Holmes county of the offense' of unlawfully having intoxicating liquor in his possession. The indictment charged the second offense.
There are seven (7) assignments of error. The first is based upon the action of the court in denying the defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment. There is no tenable ground stated in the motion in arrest of judgment and, therefore, it is property denied. The second assignment of error is based on the action of the court in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. The record shows upon its face that all the evidence submitted to the jury was not included in the bill of exceptions. Therefore, this Court is not advised as to what was before the circuit court and can not say that error was committed in denying the motion for a new trial.
The third assignment of error is that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. The observation made as to the condition of the record when referring to assignment No. 2 applies to this assignment.
The fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh assignments of error apply to the ruling of the court as to documents, matters and things offered in evidence which are not shown by the bill of exceptions, nor by the transcript, and, therefore, cannot be considered.
The judgment should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum, J., concur. Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.