EULA HUGGINS AND CARRIE HUGGINS
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.
Eula and Carrie Huggins appealed their conviction for assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree, raising questions about sufficiency of evidence, alleged prosecutorial misconduct involving racial appeals to the jury, and whether the evidence supported the specific charge. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding substantial evidence supported the verdict and that the alleged prosecutorial statements were not authenticated in the record.
The judgment of conviction was affirmed. The court found ample substantial evidence supported the guilty verdict. The trial court properly allowed the victim to exhibit scars as physical evidence of the assault. Regarding the alleged prosecutorial misconduct, absent an authenticated bill of exceptions showing the State's Attorney made the statements attributed to him, the court could not assume such gross violations of criminal practice rules occurred.
“If the transcript of the record showed by the authenticated bill of exceptions that the State's Attorney indulged in the argument attributed to him in this ground of the motion a new trial would be awarded.”
Establishes that although racial appeals to the jury would warrant reversal, they must be authenticated in the record to be considered on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Huggins defendants were convicted of assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree. The victim exhibited scars from wounds allegedly in…
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 Physical Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiffs in error present three questions for us to consider, as follows:.
“1. Did the court err in denying defendant’s motion for new trial?”
“2. Where, in his argument to the jury, the State Attorney constantly appealed to racial prejudice over the objections of the defense, will such conduct entitle the defendants to a new trial?”
*330“3. Where the evidence, in a prosecution for assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree wholly fails to show any intent to commit murder in any of its degrees, will the verdict be sustained?”
There are nine grounds set up in motion for new trial.
There is one assignment of error, that the court erred in denying motion for new trial.
The first, second, third and sixth grounds of the motion challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the ver•dict and judgment of guilty of assault with intent to com'mit murder in the first degree.
No useful purpose can be served by delineating the evidence. It is sufficient to say that the record discloses ample substantial evidence to support the judgment.
The fourth ground of the motion challenges the action of the court in allowing the person on whom the alleged assault was made to exhibit the scars identified as the result of the wounds inflicted by the defendants in making the alleged assault.
There was no error in this regard. The scars were physical evidence of the character of the assault and the jury was entitled to look upon the scars when it was shown that they were the result solely of the wounds inflicted by the accused and had not been caused or changed by other means. 16 C. J. 621; Twitty v. State, 168 Ala. 59, 53 Sou. 308.
The fifth, seventh and eighth grounds of the motion are abandoned.
The ninth ground of the motion is as follows:
“Because the State Attorney in his argument to the jury repeatedly alluded to the defendants as negroes; that the negro race was fast dwindling away and they should above all people be above reproach; that niggers didn’t pay any of the expense of government, and that you good people of *331Suwannee County are right today having to pay all of the costs and expenses of prosecuting these niggers; that the' defendant, Eula Huggins, was constantly referred to as the old foxy woman, trying to put all the blame on her chil- . dren because she knew and I know 'that the court will probably only send them to reform school, that her defense was foxy and cleverly planned and schemed, that never before in his career had he prosecuted as vicious a case and one as bloody as this, and remarked that if one of the defendants had talked to him as he did Mr. Carver he would have slapped him down too and that he would have slapped him so hard that he never would have forgotten it, in fact, that if a bunch of niggers had jumped on him he didn’t know what he would have done, that he expected he would have done more than Mr. Carver did.”
If the transcript of the record showed by the authenticated bill of exceptions that the State’s Attorney indulged in the argument attributed to him in this ground of the motion a new trial would be awarded. Johnson v. State, 88 Fla. 461, 102 Sou. 549; Pearce v. State, 93 Fla. 504, 112 Sou. 83; Henderson v. State, 93 Fla. 318, 113 Sou. 689. In the absence of such showing in the record, we cannot, assume that the State’s Attorney so grossly violated the settled rules of practice i-n criminal cases. Gaines v. State, 97 Fla. 908, 122 Sou. 525; Ellison v. State, 91 Fla. 502, 107 Sou. 640.
The record discloses no reversible error. So, the judgment should be, and is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman-, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robinson v. State, 520 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1988)…esultant testimony had no bearing on any aggravating or mitigating factors.3 Racial prejudice has no place in our system of justice and has long been condemned by this Court. E.g., Cooper v. State, 136 Fla. 23, 186 So. 230 (1939); Huggins v. State, 129 Fla. 329, 176 So. 154 (1937). Nonetheless, race discrimination is an undeniable fact of this nation’s history. As the United States Supreme Court recently noted, the risk that the factor of race may enter the criminal justice process has required its unceasi…
-
Gluck v. State, 62 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1952)…urt used the following language: “It is well settled that statements or intimations 'by the prosecuting attorney that accused has committed other crimes besides that for which he is now on trial constitutes error.” In the case of Huggins v. State, 129 Fla. 329, 176 So. 154, 155, error was alleged on the ground that the State Attorney in his argument to the jury repeatedly referred to the defendants as Negroes and made many remarks derogatory to the Negro race and highly prejudicial. The transcript of the…
-
Thomas v. State, 92 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1957)…o such remarks. Appellant refers to the alleged remarks in his motion for new trial but that is not a part of the trial papers and had no influence on the jury even if it had been present. Johnson v. State, 88 Fla. 461, 102 So.549; Huggins v. State, 129 Fla. 329, 176 So. 154, and other cases are'relied on to support this contention but they are not in point with the facts of this case and are not apropos. Considerable controversy was injected into the trial in regard 'to 'a coat worn by appellant at the tim…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Henderson v. State, 94 Fla. 318 (Fla. 1927)
- Johnson v. State, 88 Fla. 461 (Fla. 1924)
- Pearce v. State, 93 Fla. 504 (Fla. 1927)
- Gaines v. State, 97 Fla. 908 (Fla. 1929)
- Maude Ellison v. State, 91 Fla. 502 (Fla. 1926)