(DOWNLOAD) "Silas Chisolm v. State Florida" by Supreme Court of Florida " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Silas Chisolm v. State Florida
- Author : Supreme Court of Florida
- Release Date : January 02, 1917
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 58 KB
Description
SHACKLEFORD, J. -- Silas Chisolm seeks relief here from a conviction of the crime of murder in the first degree. We shall first consider the seventh assignment, which is based upon the denial of the defendant's motion for a change of venue. The statute regulating a change of venue, under which this motion was made, is Section 3997 of the General Statutes of 1906, Compiled Laws of 1914, and reads as follows: ""Whenever it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the presiding judge of any of the circuit courts of this State that the venue of any cause, then pending in such court, should be changed either because a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county where the crime was committed, or because it is impracticable to get a qualified jury to try the case in the county where the crime was committed, or where it appears from the examination of the books of registration of the county, that there are not a sufficient number of registered voters to form a grand or petit jury, it shall be in the power and discretion of such judge to change the venue of such case, from the circuit court of the county where such cause is at the time pending to the circuit court of any other county within the same circuit."" This section is a consolidation and amendment of several statutes. See Sections 2927, 2028 and 2930 of the Revised Statutes of 1892 and Chapter 4394 of the Laws of Florida, (Acts of 1895, p. 159), to which we have had occasion to refer and discuss several times. We have repeatedly and uniformly held that ""Applications for changes of venue are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the refusal of such applications will not be held erroneous, unless it appears from the facts presented that the court acted unfairly and committed a palpable abuse of sound discretion."" See McNealy v. State, 17 Fla. 198; Irvin v. State, 19 Fla.