BOSS BROWN, ET AL.,
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.
Boss Brown and co-defendants were convicted of larceny of a cow in Collier County and sentenced to two years imprisonment. On writ of error to the Florida Supreme Court, defendants challenged the trial court's refusal to grant a continuance based on inadequate time to prepare their defense, but the court affirmed the conviction based on the record showing defendants had counsel present and announced ready for trial.
The trial court committed no reversible error in proceeding to trial. The record demonstrates that defendants had procured counsel who was present at trial, and defendants themselves announced ready for trial, negating any claim of inadequate preparation time.
“There is no general principle of law fixing the exact time which must elapse between the finding of an indictment and the beginning of a trial thereon. Such matters are left to the sound discretion of the trial court to be controlled by what is fair, right and reasonable in each particular case.”
Establishes the legal standard that trial courts have discretion in determining timing between indictment and trial, based on fairness and reasonableness
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants Boss Brown, Sam Hamilton, and Mack Beth Johnson were indicted on October 2, 1933, for larceny of a cow belonging to Lovie Lopez. They were …
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 Good Cause For Continuance cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiffs in error were indicted and convicted in the Circuit Court of Collier County upon an indictment which charged them with larceny of a cow, the property of one Lovie Lopez. From a sentence of two years imprisonment in State Prison writ of error has been taken to this Court.
Defendants below were indicted on October 2, 1933, and *588required to go to trial on the afternoon of October 3, 1933. The following minute entry is found in the transcript:
“The defendants in the cas'e of State of Florida v. Sam Hamilton, Boss Brown, represented by counsel, and Mack Beth Johnson being present in court, announced ready for trial and the jury being in the box His Honor George W. Whitehurst pursuant to recess ordered the trial to continue, thereupon the following witnesses were called, etc.” (Emphasis supplied.)
It is therefore evident from the record that no reversible error was committed by the court in refusing to grant defendants a new trial because of lack of reasonable time for said defendants to procure counsel and prepare their defense. The minute recital just quoted disclosed not only that counsel was procured, and was actually present at the trial, but also that the defendants “announced ready for trial” on Wednesday morning, October 4, 1933.
There is no general principle of law fixing the exact time which must elapse between the finding of an indictment and the beginning of a trial thereon. Such matters are left to the sound discretion of the trial court to be controlled by what is fair, right and reasonable in each particular case. Reed v. State, 94 Fla. 32, 113 Sou. Rep. 630. Section 8375 C. G. L., 6070 R. G. S., provides that the Court shall cause an accus'ed to be arraigned and tried at the same term, unless good cause is shown for a continuance. No motion for a continuance or for a reasonable postponement of the trial to a later date in the term, appears to have been interposed in any form sufficient to support an assignment of error based on the refusal of the court to accede to such a request timely interposed and properly founded.
The evidence has been examined in the light of the arguments made in the briefs but it has not been demonstrated *589that the court committed reversible error in refusing to disturb the verdict of guilty. The verdict found appears to have legal support in the evidence and we cannot say that the testimony disclosed by the bill of exceptions is insufficient to warrant the conclusion of guilt evidently drawn by the jury from the facts testified to by the state’s witnesses.
The judgment is affirmed.
Ellis, and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sinclair v. State, 657 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1995)…ly appointed. The time to be given a defendant to obtain counsel and prepare for his defense is within the discretion of the trial court, “controlled by what is fair, right, and reasonable in each particular case.” Brown v. State, 116 Fla. 587, 588, 156 So. 606 (1934). Our independent review of the record reveals no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court as to this claim. Gore v. State, 599 So. 2d 978 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 610, 121 L.Ed.2d 545 (1992). Based on the foregoing…
-
Kovner v. Louie L. Wainwright, 149 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1962)…o go on trial at that time and requesting a continuance, announced to the trial court at the commencement of the proceedings that he was “ready for trial.” In both Reed v. State, 1927, 94 Fla. 32, 113 So. 630 and Brown v. State, 1934, 116 Fla. 587, 156 So. 606, it was held that there had been no denial of the right to time to prepare for trial where the defendant announced to the court his readiness for trial. In each of those cases, however, the defendant was represented by counsel when the cause came on…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Davenport v. State, 94 Fla. 32 (Fla. 1927)