SMITH
v.
UNITED STATES
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 Supreme Court held that it would not hear a criminal appeal when the convicted defendant had escaped and was not subject to the court's jurisdiction, as such circumstances made the case potentially moot and the defendant unlikely to submit to any sentence if affirmed. The Court denied the defendant's motion to set the case for argument and ordered that unless he submit to the jurisdiction of the lower court by the next term, the case would be removed from the docket.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chiee Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
It is clearly within our discretion to refuse to hear a criminal case in error, unless the convicted party, suing out the writ, is where he can be made to respond to any judgment we may render. In this case it is-admitted that the plaintiff in error has. escaped, and is not within the control of the court below, either actually, by being in custody, or constructively, by being out on bail. If we affirm the judgment, he-is not likely to appear to submit to his sentence. If we reverse it and order a new trial, he will appear or not, as he may consider most for his interest. Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to hear and decide what may prove to be only a moot case.
This cause was docketed here Dec. 29, 1870. In due time a brief was filed on behalf of the plaintiff in error, and the cause has been regularly continued at every term since, no one appearing here in person to represent the plaintiff. At this term we dismissed the writ, on motion of the United States, for want of prosecution, but have since reinstated it on motion of the counsel for the plaintiff in error, wbp now moves to have it set down for argument. This motion we deny, and order that, unless the plaintiff in error submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court below on or before the first day of our next term, the cause be left off the docket after that time. The People v. Genet, 59 N. Y. 80; Leftwich's Case, 20 Gratt. 723; Commonwealth v. Andrews, 97 Mass. 544; see also 31 Me. 592.
Motion to set down the case for argument denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (52 total)
-
Bretti v. Louie L. Wainwright, 225 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 1969)…. 525, 41 L.Ed. 949 (1897); and also see Decree v. State, Fla.App., 180 So. 2d 667 (1965) where the court dismissed the appeal because the appellant was a fugitive and not available to confer with his counsel; and Smith v. United States, 94 U.S. 97, 24 L.Ed. 32 (1897) in which it was stated, “This court will refuse to hear a criminal case, unless the convicted party suing out the writ of error is where he can be made to respond to any judgment which may be rendered here.” A fugitive has no right whatever t…
-
Woodson v. State, 19 Fla. 549 (Fla. 1882)
-
Electa E. Palmer v. Palmer, 28 Fla. 295 (Fla. 1891)
Previewing 3 of 52 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence