WM. D. HOLLEY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Holley sought habeas corpus and bail pending trial for murder, arguing the circumstantial and hearsay evidence was insufficient to establish probable cause. The Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant indicted for murder is entitled to a habeas corpus hearing where he may present evidence to demonstrate the crime's grade or raise sufficient doubts that a jury should not convict, and may be discharged on bail if he meets this burden.
A defendant indicted for murder has the right to a habeas corpus hearing where he may present evidence to convince the court that the offense is of such a grade or there are such strong doubts that a jury should not convict of a capital offense, and may be discharged on bail upon such showing. The grand jury indictment alone does not conclusively establish probable cause for bail purposes.
“a party indicted for murder is entitled, under the laws of this State, upon habeas corpus, to produce such evidence as may operate to convince the court that the offence is of such, grade, or that there are such strong doubts in the case that a jury should not, upon the case as presented, convict of a capital offence, and be discharged on bail.”
Establishes the defendant's right to present evidence on habeas corpus despite an indictment and to obtain bail if he convinces the court of deficiencies in the prosecution's case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHolley was indicted for murder and applied for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain bail. He argued he was not guilty, the evidence was merely circumstan…
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 Right To Bail cases and more on FLexlaw
delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff in error, indicted for murder, applied to the court for a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of discharge on bail, upon the ground that he was not guilty, and *689upon the ground that the proof was not evident nor the “ presumption great; ” that the evidence on the part of the State was merely circumstantial and hearsay, and does not even- raise a presumption of guilt; and, further, that he is an invalid and his health will be impaired by confinement in jail until the next term of the court. ;
The Judge refused to grant the writ substantially upon the ground that the finding of an indictment by a grand jury established the fact, for the purposes of this application, that the proof was evident and the presumption great. -
At the last term of this court we held, - in the case of Einch against the State, that a party indicted for murder is entitled, under the laws of this State, upon habeas corpus, to produce such evidence.as may operate to convince the court that the offence is of such, grade, or that there are such strong doubts in the case that a jury should not, upon the case as, presented, convict of a capital offence, and be discharged on bail.
Of course, upon such an application, the public prosecutor should have sufficient notice of the time and- place of the hearing to prepare therefor and to produce evidence. "Whether in such case the public interests require, the prosecutor to produce,any evidence beyond.,the indictment, must be judged of by him and -by the court, and the conclusion of the court upon the' case as presented will not prejudice the State or the-accused ¡when..the facts are.,.prese,pted to a jUr^
The order of the-Circuit-Court is reversed^ and the cause remanded, with direction that, the writ be granted.. ,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State ex rel. Edward E. Loper v. Stack, 291 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…hat on an application for bail the burden is on the accused “to take the initiative and show from the evidence that the proof of his guilt is not evident or the presumption great”. Larkin v. State, Fla. 1951, 51 So. 2d 185; See also Holley v. State, 15 Fla. 688 (1876); Rigdon v. State, 41 Fla. 308, 26 So. 711 (1899); Ex parte Nathan, 50 So. 38 (1908); Ex parte Tully, 70 Fla. 1, 66 So. 296 (1914); Russell v. State, 71 Fla. 236, 71 So. 27; State ex rel. Ball v. Buchanan, Fla.App. 1966, 185 So. 2d 510; see al…