Holder v. State, (1939)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 9
Judges: THOMAS, J.
Attorneys: Douglas Schad, Zach H. Douglas and Parks M. Carmichael, for Plaintiff in Error.
George Couper Gibbs, Attorney General, Tyrus A. Norwood and Thomas J. Ellis, Assistant Attorneys General, and J.C. Adkins,
for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Apr. 04, 1939
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: The plaintiff in error was charged in an information with having fraudulently altered and changed the marks of an animal "not his own, with intent to claim the same and to prevent identification by * * * the true owner." (Italics supplied.) This conforms to the definition of the offense denounced in Section 7279 C.G.L. 1927, except that the conjunctive "and," which we have italicized, does not appear in the statute, but instead the disjunctive "or" is used. This *Page 882 does not render the inf
Summary: The plaintiff in error was charged in an information with having fraudulently altered and changed the marks of an animal "not his own, with intent to claim the same and to prevent identification by * * * the true owner." (Italics supplied.) This conforms to the definition of the offense denounced in Section 7279 C.G.L. 1927, except that the conjunctive "and," which we have italicized, does not appear in the statute, but instead the disjunctive "or" is used. This *Page 882 does not render the info..
More
I concur in all the foregoing opinion, but as to that part which pertains to the overruling by the Court of the defendant's motion to exclude the prosecuting witness from the Court room along with the other witnesses, I might add the exemption of the prosecuting witness, especially where he is required to testify first, appears to have been recognized in some jurisdictions as a matter within the discretion of the trial court, which will not be held to be reversible error unless it appears that such action was prejudicial to the defendant. But in many cases, such exemptions may be prejudicial, and it may have been here, and in the absence of any showing by the State of any good reason why this witness should have been exempted from the rule, and in view of the reasons stated by defendant's counsel in his motion to exclude him, I concur with the holding that error was committed. In this connection, see 16 C.J. 842, 64 C.J. 119.
Source: CourtListener
