SYLVESTER JOHNSON, ALIAS SYLVESTER BLOCKER
v.
STATE
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 appellate court reversed a conviction because the trial court improperly denied the defendant's motion for a continuance. The defendant needed more time to secure material witnesses after being arraigned on the same day he was put on trial.
Yes, the denial of the motion for a continuance was reversible error. A defendant is entitled to sufficient time after arraignment to procure witnesses who are available and within reach of the court's process.
“There are other assignments of error but we think the only reversible error shown by the record is the denial of the motion for a continuance for a reasonable time in which defendant might procure material witnesses in his behalf.”
Identifies the primary legal error found by the court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSylvester Johnson was arraigned on an information on the morning of February 7th, 1933, and his counsel saw the charges for the first time that day. C…
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 Rape cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff in error was informed against the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County in an information in two counts. The first count charged an assault with intent to rape. The second count charged the breaking and entering of a building with intent to commit a felony, to-wit: the crime of rape.
Information was filed on February 6th, 1933.
Defendant was brought into court and arraigned on the morning of February 7th, 1933, at which time his counsel for the first time saw the information.
Counsel moved for a continuance of the case until the following morning so as to be able to procure material witnesses in behalf of the defendant. The motion was denied. The case was' continued until the afternoon of February 7th, at which time defendant was put on trial over his protest and at which time his counsel insisted on a continuance until the following morning, making sufficient showing that material witnesses in behalf of defendant resided in Dade County where they could be served with process in time to appear in court the following morning.
There are other assignments of error but we think the only reversible error shown by the record is the denial of the motion for a continuance for a reasonable time in which defendant might procure material witnesses in his behalf.
Any person put on trial, regardless of whether he be guilty or not, is entitled to a fair and impartial trial and he is also entitled to sufficient time after his arraignment to procure witnesses who are shown to be available and within easy reach of the process of the court.
This case falls within the rule enunciated in the case of Coker v. State, 82 Fla. 5, 89 Sou. 222; Reed v. State, 94 *195Fla. 32, 113 Sou. 630; Lowe v. State, 95 Fla. 81, 116 Sou. 240; Anderson v. State, 92 Fla. 477, 110 Sou. 250.
Upon authority of the opinions in the above cited cases and cases therein cited, the judgment should be reversed and it is so ordered.
Reversed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Brown, J., not participating because of illness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Makron H. Shepherd v. State, 108 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)…s so interfused with error that it must be reversed and a new trial granted. Reversed. STURGIS, C. J., and THORNAL, Associate Judge, concur. . F.S. §§ 916.03, 916.04 and 916.05, F.S.A. . 12 Am. Jur. § 5, p. 450. .Johnson v. State, 113 Fla. 193, 151 So. 383. . Coker v. State, 82 Ma. 5, 89 So. 222. . Coker v. State, supra note 4; Ford v. Ford, 150 Fla. 717, 8 So. 2d 495. . Courtney v. Central Trust Company, 112 Fla. 298, 150 So. 276. . F.S. § 916.01, F.S.A.…
Authorities Cited
- Davenport v. State, 94 Fla. 32 (Fla. 1927)
- Elbert Coker v. State, 82 Fla. 5 (Fla. 1921)
- Anderson v. State, 92 Fla. 477 (Fla. 1926)
- Lowe v. State, 95 Fla. 81 (Fla. 1928)