Plaintiff in Error, Charles Brotvn, alias Charles Pisellia, alias Charles Piselli, alias Charles Pisella, alias Joseph John Young, was jointly indicted with Clara Browne, alias Clara Pisellia, alias Clara Piselli, аlias Clara Pisella, his wife, and Joe Brown, alias George Browne, alias George P. Burns, alias George L. Guinasso. The charge was murder. Upon motion of the State Attorney, there was a severance. Plaintiff in error was put upon trial. There was a verdict of guilty and sentеnce of death.
The indictment was returned on November 15, 1923. On the same day an attorney was appointed to represent the defendant Charles Browne. The defendant was duly arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. The ease was set to be tried on the 19th day of November, 1923. When the ease was reached for trial on that day there was a mоtion for a postponement of the trial “to a date not earlier
There was a motion that the attorney for defendant be permitted to confer with the defendant and his wife, Clara Browne, a co-defendant, together, it being alleged thаt since their arrest they had been detained separately and not permitted to sеe or talk with each other. The court made an order that the attorney for defendant be permitted to confer with him and his wife, Clara Browne, separately. There was аlso a suggestion by his attorney of the insanity of defendant and a motion that his mental conditiоn be inquired into before proceeding with the trial. This motion was granted. A committee was аppointed by the court under instructions to examine the defendant, confining their investigatiоn to his mental condition at
Application for postponement or continuance is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and the ruling of the court either granting or denying such appliсation will not be disturbed unless an abuse of this discretion is clearly shown. But an accused and his сounsel are entitled to a reasonable time in which to prepare for trial after indictment, and the ruling of a trial court denying an application for postponement or continuance is subject to review on writ of error. Where, in a criminal prosеcution, an abuse of discretion is clearly shown and it appears that in the furtherance of justice a new trial should be awarded, a judgment of conviction will be reversed because of such error. Moore v. State, 59 Fla. 23,
In view of the showing of defendant’s impaired mеntal faculties previous to the alleged crime, requiring his detention in a hospital for the insane, and injuries sustained while in the military service, resulting in alleged delusions and periodicаl insanity and that he was held practically incommimicado except as to the attorney appointed to represent him, to whom he was a stranger, from the date of the indictment to the time of his trial, we are constrained to hold that the denial of the motion for a week’s postponement of the trial for preparation was error and the ends of justice require a new trial.
Reversed.