MITCHELL JONES
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for manslaughter, finding no reversible error in the trial court's proceedings despite the appellant's numerous vague questions on appeal. The court reviewed the entire record to ensure fairness.
The court held that the questions presented by the appellant were too vague and indefinite to meet the court's rules for review. Nevertheless, after examining the entire record, the court found no reversible error.
“The questions as stated do not meet the requirements of Amended Rule 20, as they are so vague and indefinite as to require a perusal of the entire record to ascertain what is meant by each question.”
This quote explains the court's initial finding regarding the inadequacy of the appellant's presented questions for review.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of manslaughter under an indictment for first-degree murder. The appellant, through writ of error, sought review of this 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 Cross-Examination Scope cases and more on FLexlaw
—Writ of error brings for review judgment of conviction of manslaughter under an indictment charging murder in the first degree.
*140Plaintiff in error poses six questions, as follows:
“1. Was the evidence sufficient to support the verdict of manslaughter ?” •
“2. Does counsel for the defense have a right in his cross-examination of the witness for the State to ask any question relative to the issue, whether leading or otherwise ?”
“3. Is any ruling of the court which is tantamount to show impatience prejudicial to the defendant?”
“4. Are the declarations of the deceased admissible in evidence ?”
“5. Is the fact of a talk with another party relevant to 'the issue ?”
“6. Did the court err in denying the- written request for charge presented by the defendant?”
The questions as stated do not meet the requirements of Amended Rule 20, as they are so vague and indefinite as to require a perusal of the entire record to ascertain what is meant by each question.
Having examined the entire record, we find no reversible error reflected therein and, therefore, the judgment should be/ and is, affirmed.
So ordered.
Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.