JESSE HARRIS
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 affirmed a conviction for assault with intent to murder, finding no reversible error in the trial court's jury instruction regarding counsel's remarks. The court emphasized that the instruction, while unusual, was requested by the defense and did not amount to a constitutional violation.
The court held that the trial court's instruction, while unusual, was not a reversible error. It was given at the request of the defendant's counsel and did not amount to a constitutional violation.
“Gentlemen of the jury, I am sure you have enough intelligence not to infer anything from the remarks of counsel on either side.”
This is the trial court's instruction to the jury that was at issue 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 intelligenceDuring a trial for assault with intent to murder, the prosecutor asked the defendant if he was a "pistol toter." The defense objected, and the court s…
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 Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
Writ of error brings for review a judgment of conviction under an information charging assault with intent to murder in the first degree.
There is one assignment of error, as follows:
“First: That the evidence introduced at the trial of the cause is insufficient under the law to sustain a verdict against the defendant.”
The assignment of error has not been argued here or presented by any question in brief. The only question presented by plaintiff in error is:
“Question No. 1. In a trial for assault with intent to murder when the trial court instructed the jury as follows: Quote, ‘Gentlemen of the jury, I am sure you have enough intelligence not to infer anything from the remarks of counsel on either side.’ Unquote. Is this such a departure from the rules of practice and law as to amount to a flagrant abuse of defendant’s constitutional rights, and may such question be raised where no assignment of error has been filed upon same ?”
The question is based on the following occurrence during the progress of the trial while the accused was on the stand as a witness and being cross examined by an assistant County Solicitor:
“By Mr. Spicola:
“Q. You are not what is called a ‘Pistol toter’, are you?
“Objected to by counsel for the defendant.
“The Court: I don’t think that is proper.
“Mr. Martin: I am going to ask the Court to instruct the jury not to pay any attention to the innuendoes of counsel.
“The Court: I sustain the objection. Gentlemen of the jury, I am sure you have enough intelligence not to infer anything from the remarks of counsel on either side.”
*253So the record shows that the court did just what counsel for accused requested be done.
No exception was taken and no reversible error appears in this regard.
• We have examined the entire record and find no reversible error. So the judgment must be affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Thomas, 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
-
North v. State, 159 Fla. 854 (Fla. 1947)…e brief of the appellant, and therefore we must assume that the point has been abandoned. See Clements v. Starbird, 152 Fla. 555, 12 So. (2nd) 578; State v. Jensen Road & Bridge Dist. et al., 144 Fla. 442, 198 So. 105; Harris v. State, 135 Fla. 251, 184 So. 851. Another assignment of error filed by the appellant raises the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. We have examined the record carefully and are of the view that the evidence adduced by the prosecution — even without…
-
State ex rel. Edward J. McGrath v. Coleman, 145 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1941)…ereby reversed with directions that the Judge of the Circuit Court of Monroe County, by appropriate order, fix the amount and conditions of bail to be furnished by the petitioner Edward J. McGrath. See Ex parte: Emory Williams, et al., 135 Fla. 283, 184 So. 851. It is so ordered. Whitfield, Brown and Thomas, J. J., concur. Chief Justice Terrell and Justices Buford and Adams not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.…