Griggs v. StateGriggs v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Terrell
On Petition for Rehearing
Per Curiam.By petition for rehearing, the Court is requested to examine the principal charge given by the trial court as to those matters of fact requisite tо be found by the jury in order to justify a verdict of guilty of perjury, for the purpose of determining whether or not the charge was рrejudicial to the defendаnt as assuming that certain material and controverted facts were conclusively еstablished by the evidence and stating as law matters of faсt which the jury should determine. See Hisler v. State, 52 Fla. 30, 42 So. R. 692; Goodbread v. Thomas, 82 Fla. 411, 90 So. R. 156.
Upon the original consideration ■ of this cаse, the Court carefully scrutinizеd and weighed the charge in question, having in mind the criticism just stated. Thе Court was then, and is now, of the opinion that while the charge complained of is somewhat cumbersome, and is not tо be commended as a mоdel, it is not sufficiently misleading as аn unwarranted charge upon the facts to constitute рrejudicial error. The charge commences with the words: “The court charges you of its own motion that if you belive frоm the evidence in this casе,” etc., and after referring tо the existence of certain material facts in the manner complained of by thе plaintiff in error, concludеs with the language: “If you do not sо believe, or if you have а reasonable doubt as to his guilt, you will find him not guilty. ’ ’ In view of that language in the charge, and in view of the ample sufficiency of the evidence to which the charge applies to sustаin the verdict, if not to conclusively establish *750 the matters of fact in question, we are not convinced that the jury was misled by the charge as a whole.
Rehearing denied.
Terrell, C. J. and Whitfield, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J. concur.