Bennett v. State
| Decision Date | 04 February 1913 |
| Citation | 65 Fla. 84,61 So. 127 |
| Parties | BENNETT v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Calhoun County; D. J. Jones, Judge.
Willis Bennett was convicted of perjury, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
An indictment for perjury is sufficient which is not so vague indistinct, or indefinite as to mislead the accused or embarrass him in the preparation of his defense, or expose him to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense.
There is no error in refusing special instructions upon matters covered by the general charge of the trial judge.
COUNSEL Thomas E. Walker, of Marianna, for plaintiff in error.
T. F West, Atty. Gen., and C. O. Andrews, of Tallahassee, for the State.
Willis Bennett, the plaintiff in error, was indicted in the circuit court of Calhoun county at the fall term, 1912, for perjury alleged to have been committed by him as a witness for his brother, Hosea Bennett, who was then being tried for an alleged aggravated assault upon J. L. Cain. The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted at the same term. He was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for 12 months. He has brought the judgment here in writ of error for review. A motion was made to quash the indictment, which was denied. The first ground of the motion is that 'the indictment is vague, indefinite, uncertain, and insufficient, and states no offense against this defendant.' No particular defect is pointed out in the motion, but in the brief it seems to be contended that the indictment is defective in not clearly alleging the facts showing the perjury. The indictment is a long one, giving in detail the facts, and we do not think it necessary to set it out here. We have read it carefully, and we think it is not obnoxious to the criticism made. It does not appear to us to be so vague, indistinct, or indefinite as to mislead the accused, or embarrass him in the preparation of his defense or expose him to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense. Section 2962, Gen. Stats. of 1906. The indictment seems to be in substantial conformity to the rules laid down in Fudge v. State, 57 Fla. 7, 49 So. 128, 17 Ann. Cas. 919, and other decisions of this court.
The third ground of the motion is next discussed, and alleges that the indictment fails to charge that the said false oath and testimony was false and material. The cases of Miller v. State, 15 Fla. 577, and Robinson v. State, 18 Fla. 898, are referred to as sustaining this ground. In the last of these cases the indictment was approved, and it is no stronger, and is very similar in form to the one in the instant case. In the former the form of the indictment was not reviewed. The case turned on charges of the court. We refer to our discussion of the previous assignment. We find no reversible errors. What we have said is applicable to the next ground of the motion.
The next assignment presented is based on the ruling refusing to grant a motion for a new trial. It is contended under this assignment that Willis Bennett was not sworn as a witness. We fail to see the point of this assignment as the clerk of the court, S. B. Atkins, was sworn as a witness, and testified that he administered the oath to Bennett, giving the language of the oath, and no one testified to the contrary. The sufficiency of the oath is not otherwise questioned.
The seventh assignment of error is based on the refusal of the court 'to give special charges ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Whitney
... ... R. Co. v. Crosby, ... 53 Fla. 400, text 476, 43 So. 318, text 341; Hoopes v ... Crane, 56 Fla. 395, 47 So. 992; Padgett v ... State, 64 Fla. ----, 59 So. 946. Also see the discussion ... and the authorities cited in the dissenting opinion of ... White v. State, 59 Fla. 53, text ... ...
-
Ward v. State
...or expose him to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense.' Jarvis v. State, 73 Fla. 635, 74 So. 794; Bennett v. State, 65 Fla. 84, 61 So. 127; Edwards v. State, 62 Fla. 40, 56 So. 401; v. State, 58 Fla. 54, 50 So. 538; Mills v. State 58 Fla. 74, 51 So. 278; Johnson v. S......
-
Tindall v. State
...him thereafter to substantial danger of another prosecution for the same offense. As applied to indictments for perjury, see Bennett v. State, 65 Fla. 84, 61 So. 127; v. State, 73 Fla. 635, 74 So. 794; Edwards v. State, 62 Fla. 40, 56 So. 401; Gray v. State, 58 Fla. 54, 50 So. 538; Mills v.......
-
Hicks v. State
...by instructions already given. Peeler v. State, 64 Fla. 385, 59 So. 899; Robertson v. State, 64 Fla. 437, 60 So. 118; Bennett v. State, 65 Fla. 84, 61 So. 127; Owens v. State, 65 Fla. 483, 62 So. The contention is also made that the court erred in refusing to give certain special charges re......