HAMP ANDREWS
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.
Hamp Andrews was convicted of larceny of a cow and appealed, claiming the trial court erred in denying his motion for continuance and that the evidence was insufficient. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, finding the motion failed to meet established requirements and the evidence amply supported the verdict.
The trial court did not err in denying the motion for continuance because it failed to meet the established requirements for such motions. The evidence was amply sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment of conviction.
“The exercise by the trial court of discretion in the matter of granting or denying applications for continuance will not be interfered with by an appellate court unless it is clearly shown that there has been a palpable abuse of such discretion to the manifest injury of the party against whom it was exercised.”
Establishes the standard of review for denial of continuance motions—appellate courts defer to trial court discretion absent clear abuse
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAndrews was charged with larceny of a cow. At trial, he moved for a continuance claiming absent witnesses, but the motion failed to comply with statut…
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 Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of- error brings for review judgment of conviction of the offense of larceny of a cow.
Plaintiff in error contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for continuance. He also contends that the evidence is not sufficient to- support the verdict.
*451In Yarborough v. State, 94 Fla. 143, 114 Sou. 237, we held:
‘‘The exercise by the trial court of discretion in the matter of granting or denying applications for continuance will not be interfered with by an appellate court unless it is clearly shown that there has been a palpable abuse of such discretion to the manifest injury of the party against whom it was exercised.”
In Moore v. State, 59 Fla. 23, 52 Sou. 971, we held:
“An application for a continuance on the ground of an absent witness should state under oath the facts expected to be proven by the witness, where and how the information was obtained, and that the desired witness would testify as stated, and the application should also state facts- showing that all reasonable effort has been made to secure the attendance of the witness at the time the application for continuance is made; that he is' absent without the consent of the party, directly or indirectly given, that he resides within the jurisdiction of the court; that the testimony is material and not merely cumulative; that the testimony desired cannot be given by any available witness; that the applicant reasonably expects to procure the presence of the witness at the future day; that he cannot safely go to trial without the testimony of the witness; that the application is made in good faith and not for delay only.
“Motions for continuance are in the discretion of the trial court, and the action; of that court on them will not be reversed unless there has been a palpable abuse of that discretion to the disadvantage of the accused, or whereby his rights may have been jeopardized.”
See also Browne v. State, 92 Fla. 699, 109 Sou. 811; Whitman v. State, 97 Fla. 988, 122 Sou. 567.
The motion for continuance in this case entirely failed to meet the requirements of the rule as stated in the cited *452cases. The record shows that one of the witnesses named as an absent witness in the motion, Carl Cone, was in the court room and was during the trial identified by a State’s witness while on the stand testifying in this case.
There was no error in denying the motion.
The evidence was amply sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment.
A consideration of the entire record discloses no reversible error. So the judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Wi-iitfield, 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
-
Cooper v. State, 336 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 1976)…iction. . See, Paramore v. State, 229 So. 2d 855 (Fla.1969). . Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 92 S.Ct. 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972); MeDole v. State, 283 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1973). . Williams v. State, 264 So. 2d 106 (4th DCA 1972). . Andrews v. State, 134 Fla. 450, 184 So. 88 (1938). . 283 So. 2d 1, 7 (Fla.1973). The general standard of relevance is explained in Atlantic Coast Line Ry. v. Campbell, 104 Fla. 274, 139 So. 886 (1932). . The legislative intent to avoid condemned arbitrariness pervades the statu…
-
Holman v. State, 347 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…le abuse of this judicial discretion. Moore v. State, 59 Fla. 23, 52 So. 971 (1910); Hall v. State, 70 Fla. 48, 69 So. 692 (1915); Walker v. State, 93 Fla. 1069, 113 So. 96 (1927); Hysler v. State, 132 Fla. 209, 181 So. 354 (1938); Andrews v. State, 134 Fla. 450, 184 So. 88 (1938); Acree v. State, 153 Fla. 561, 15 So. 2d 262 (1943); Sikes v. State, 280 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1973); Mobley v. State, 327 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1976); Abbott v. State, 334 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1976). Moreover,…
-
Goss v. State, 398 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…viction and in refusing to grant a continuance when an out of state expert medical witness declined to appear and testify on his behalf. Appellant fails to demonstrate an abuse of the court’s discretion in denying the continuance. Andrews v. State, 134 Fla. 450, 184 So. 88 (1938); Holman v. State, 347 So. 2d 832 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), cert. denied 354 So. 2d 981 (1978). Thus there is no error shown as to that issue. We agree with appellant that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the kidnapping convicti…
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
- Moore v. State, 59 Fla. 23 (Fla. 1910)
- Browne v. State, 92 Fla. 699 (Fla. 1926)
- Whitman v. State, 97 Fla. 988 (Fla. 1929)
- Yarborough v. State, 94 Fla. 143 (Fla. 1927)