RUBY WHITE AND ROBERT HARDIN
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.
Ruby White and Robert Hardin were convicted of armed robbery. The Florida Supreme Court reviewed their conviction on a writ of error and affirmed, rejecting arguments that the trial court erred in refusing a jury instruction on reasonable doubt and in denying a motion for new trial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
The court erred in neither respect. A juror may determine whether he entertains reasonable doubt as legally defined by the court, but it is not within a juror's province to determine as a matter of law what constitutes reasonable doubt. Additionally, the motion for new trial allegations regarding prosecutorial misconduct cannot be considered because they are not supported by the record with proper exceptions and are not self-supporting.
“Each juror may determine for himself whether he entertains such a reasonable doubt as is defined by the court but it is not within the province of a juror to determine as a matter of law what constitutes a reasonable doubt.”
Establishes the legal standard that jurors apply the court's legal definition of reasonable doubt to their own mental state but cannot redefine the legal standard itself.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhite and Hardin were convicted of armed robbery following a jury trial. The defendants requested a jury instruction allowing each juror to determine …
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 Prosecutorial Comment On Silence cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of error in this case brings for review a judgment of conviction for offense of armed robbery.
The assignments of error are five in number. Only the fourth and fifth assignments are argued. "The others, there*129fore, considered abandoned. The fourth assignment of error- is based on the refusal to give a charge reading as follows:
“The Court further instructs the jury that each and every one of you is entitled to have his own conception of what constitutes a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendants', defendants having duly presented request in writing to the Judge to so charge the jury at the close of the evidence for both parties and before the retirement of the jury and before the giving of the general charge of the Court.”
This’ assignment cannot be sustained for two reasons. The first reason is that the requested charge referred to does not correctly state the law and it is contrary to the law. The term “ a reasonable doubt” has a well recognized legal definition which was correctly given by the court. Each juror may determine for himself whether he entertains such a reasonable doubt as is defined by the court but it is not within the province of a juror to determine as a matter of law what constitutes a reasonable doubt. The other reason why this assignment of error can not avail is that no exception is' shown in the record to the action of the court in refusing to give the requested charge. Ammons v. State, 88 Fla. 444, 102 Sou. 642; Mathis v. State, 70 Fla. 194, 69 Sou. 697; Britt v. State, 88 Fla. 482, 102 Sou. 761.
The fifth assignment of error is as follows:
“Defendants contend that the court erred in overruling and denying defendant’s motion for a New Trial because the County Solicitor violated Section 8385 of the Compiled General Laws of 1927, by commenting on the failure of the defendants to take the stand in their own behalf at the preliminary hearing, and argued that if they had been innocent they would have taken the stand and denied their guilt.”
*130This assignment of error cannot avail the plaintiff in error because the record entirely fails to show that the conduct complained of on the part of the State Attorney was indulged in or that any exception was noted to any remarks made by the State Attorney during his argument of the case before the jury. And since there is nothing in the record which shows that the Prosecuting Attorney made prejudicial remarks during his argument to the jury except what is contained in defendant’s motion for new trial, this objection or assignment of error cannot be considered.
The averments of motion for new trial are not self supporting. Smith v. State, 57 Fla. 24, 48 Sou. 744. See also Folger v. State, 96, Fla. 68, 117 Sou. 694; Nobles v. State, 68 Fla. 1, 66 Sou. 153; Young v. State, 70 Fla. 211, 70 Sou. 19; Stanley v. State, 93 Fla. 372, 112 Sou. 73; Graham v. State, 72 Fla. 510, 73 Sou. 594; Kirkland v. State, 93 Fla. 172, 111 Sou. 351.
The evidence is entirely sufficient to sustain the verdict and the judgment should be affirmed.
It ,is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Brown and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Young v. State, 140 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1962)…v. State, 96 Fla. 68, 117 So. 694; Henderson v. State, 94 Fla. 318, 113 So. 689; Hayden v. State, 150 Fla. 789, 9 So. 2d 180;. Norris v. State, 150 Fla. 686, 8 So. 2d 493. Averments of motions for new trial are not self-supporting. White v. State, 121 Fla. 128, 163 So. 403; Hulst v. State, 123 Fla. 315, 166 So. 828; Holloman v. State, 140 Fla. 59, 191 So. 36. In Smith v. State, 57 Fla. 24, 48 So. 744, the court said: “The assertions of facts contained as grounds of a motion for new trial are not self-var…
-
Alberta E. Ailer v. State, 114 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…new trial averring the alleged improper remark is not self-proving and cannot activate such remark as a basis for error on appeal. Brooks v. State, Fla.1953, 64 So. 2d 914; Holloman v. State, 1939, 140 Fla. 59, 191 So. 36; and White v. State, 1935, 121 Fla. 128, 163 So. 403. But as heretofore delineated, the record actually reveals circumstances that remove the present issue from the scope of the stated rule. The trial judge entered a five-page order denying the motion for new trial. The order dealt almost…
-
Hahn v. State, 58 So.2d 188 (Fla. 1952)…g of an indictment against the defendant. The approval of the appointment was within the discretion of the Circuit Judge. The motion was without merit and there was no error in overruling it. Miller v. State, 42 Fla. 266, 28 So. 208; White v. State, 121 Fla. 128, 163 So. 403; Hulst v. State, 123 Fla. 315, 166 So. 828; Holloman v. State, 140 Fla. 59, 191 So. 36. The defendant entered his plea of not guilty on June 1. The motion for change of venue was not filed until June 7 although the case had been duly s…
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
- Stanley v. State, 93 Fla. 372 (Fla. 1927)
- Noble v. State, 68 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1914)
- Fogler v. State, 96 Fla. 68 (Fla. 1928)
- Ammons v. State, 88 Fla. 444 (Fla. 1924)
- Britt v. State, 88 Fla. 482 (Fla. 1924)
- Kirkland v. State, 93 Fla. 172 (Fla. 1921)
- Graham v. State, 72 Fla. 510 (Fla. 1916)
- Smith v. State, 57 Fla. 24 (Fla. 1909)
- Young v. State, 70 Fla. 211 (Fla. 1915)
- Mathis v. State, 70 Fla. 194 (Fla. 1915)