Alexander v. State
| Decision Date | 22 March 1898 |
| Citation | 40 Fla. 213,23 So. 536 |
| Parties | ALEXANDER v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, Leon county; John W. Malone, Judge.
Monick Alexander was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
It is well settled that while indictments for crime must generally state some time or date upon which the offense was committed which date must be prior to the finding of the indictment and within the period when the offense would be barred by limitations, yet such time need not be stated accurately except in those cases where the allegation of the precise time is material; and a different time from the one alleged may be proved at the trial, and it will be sufficient to sustain a conviction if such proof shows the offense to have been committed at any time prior to the indictment and within the bar of the statute, except in the cases where the exact time enters into the nature of the offense.
COUNSEL Joseph A. Edmondson, for plaintiff in error.
William B. Lamar, Atty, Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error was indicted, tried, and convicted at the fall term, 1897, of the circuit court for Leon county, of the crime of assault with intent to murder, and sentenced to the penitentiary for three months, and comes here by writ of error.
The indictment alleged the date of the commission of the offense to have been the 5th day of September, A. D. 1897. The trial took place on December 6, 1897. The language of the witnesses as to the time of the occurrence was that it took place 'on the fifth Sunday in September last.'
The only assignment of error insisted upon here is that the court below erred in denying the defendant's motion for new trial, made upon the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. In support of this assignment of error, it is contended here that this court will take judicial notice of the fact that there were only four Sundays in the month of September, 1897, and that consequently the date fixed by the testimony as being the 'fifth Sunday' was an impossible date, and that it was tantamount to an entire absence of proof as to any date at all of the commission of the offense; and we are cited to various authorities as being supportive of the contention. The authorities cited all relate to indictments, holding them to be bad and insufficient to support verdicts of conviction predicated thereon, when they charge the commission of an offense upon an impossible date; for example, upon a date in future, subsequent to the date...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunter v. State
...and within the bar of the statute, except in the cases where the exact time enters into the nature of the offense. Alexander v. State, 40 Fla. 213, 23 So. 536; on Indictments, § 311; Hume v. U. S., 118 F. 689, 55 C. C. A. 407; Ledbetter v. U. S., 170 U.S. 606, 612, 18 S.Ct. 774, 42 L.Ed. 11......
-
Sykes v. Sykes, 6 Div. 393
... ... 7, § 20, or laches ... 'It is the settled rule of practice in this state that a demurrer will lie for laches, as well as for statutory limitations appearing on the face of the bill. Greenlees v. Greenlees, 62 Ala. 330; ... ...
-
Thorp v. Smith
...during the period when there may be a prosecution for the alleged offense under the statute of limitations. See Alexander v. State, 40 Fla. 213, 23 So. 536. time is material, it must be proved as alleged. Every indictment must on its face charge the commission of a criminal offense, and, wh......
-
Mitchell v. State, AA-98
...Limitations.' State v. Clein, 93 So.2d 876, 879 (Fla.1957). See also Green v. State, 113 Fla. 237, 151 So. 898 (1934); Alexander v. State, 40 Fla. 213, 23 So. 536 (1898); Warrace v. State, 27 Fla. 362, 8 So. 748 (1891). The rule is said not to apply in 'those rare cases . . . where the exac......