HEYWOOD FOY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for manslaughter, finding that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for a continuance and that there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict.
No, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for continuance as no sufficient grounds were presented. Yes, there was ample evidence to sustain the verdict.
“There is nothing in the record to show that further time to prepare a defense should in fairness have been granted and no sufficient grounds for a continuance were presented.”
Reasoning for denying the motion for continuance.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe accused was indicted for murder in the first degree and subsequently convicted of manslaughter. The defendant moved for a continuance, citing abse…
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 Preparation Of Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Upon an indictment charging murder in the first degree, the accused was convicted of manslaughter and took writ of error. The indictment was presented and filed and the accused arraigned and pleaded not guilty on August 11, 1927. On August 16, 1927, a motion for continuance, on grounds of absent witnesses and lack of time to prepare a defense, was denied and the trial proceeded. There is nothing in the record to show that further time to prepare a defense should in fairness have been granted and no sufficient grounds for a continuance were presented.
There is ample evidence to sustain the verdict and no harmful errors in rulings on testimony or other proceedings are made to appear. Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.