Billings v. State
| Decision Date | 27 March 1925 |
| Citation | 103 So. 628,89 Fla. 309 |
| Parties | BILLINGS et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, St. Johns County; George Couper Gibbs Judge.
Orison Billings and Herman Cubbedge were convicted of illegal imprisonment, and they bring error.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Motion in arrest of judgment, presented to appellate court only by bill of exceptions, cannot be recognized or considered. Motion in arrest of judgment forms part of the record proper and, when evidenced to an appellate court only in and by a bill of exceptions, cannot be recognized or considered by such court.
Two or more distinct acts connected with same general offense indictable as distinct crimes, committed by same person at same time, may be coupled in one count. When a statute makes either of two or more distinct acts connected with the same general offense, and subject to the same punishment indictable as distinct crimes, they may when committed by the same person at the same time be coupled in one count and constitute but one offense.
The verdict is sustained by the evidence.
Indictment charging two offenses of similar nature in one count held not duplicitous. In prosecution for illegal imprisonment under Rev. Gen. St. 1920,§ 5057, third count of indictment under which conviction was had, charging that accused persons illegally imprisoned another, and that they confined and kidnapped such person with intent to cause him to be imprisoned, did not render indictment duplications or bad as containing offenses repugnant to each other; the offenses being similar.
Edgar W. Waybright, of Jacksonville, for plaintiffs in error.
Rivers Buford, Atty. Gen., and Marvin C. McIntosh, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment herein contains three counts. In the first count it is charged that the four defendants did without lawful authority forcibly confine and imprison one R. with intent to cause said R. to be secretly confined and imprisoned in the county and state against his will. The second count charges that the four defendants without lawful authority did confine, inveigle, and kidnap one R. with intent to cause him to be secretly confined and imprisoned in the county and state against his will. In the third count it is alleged the four defendants did without lawful authority forcibly and secretly confine and imprison another person, to wit, one R. within this state against his will, and did confine and inveigle and kidnap another person, to wit, one R. with intent to cause him, the said R. to be secretly confined and imprisoned in this state against his will. The defendants severally pleaded not guilty to each and all of the counts of the indictment. One of the defendants failed to appear and the trial proceeded against three of the defendants. The jury found the plaintiffs in error 'guilty as charged in the third count of the indictment and Henry Green not guilty as charged.' Motions in arrest of judgment and for new trial were denied, sentence was imposed, and writ of error was taken.
Kelly v. State, 44 Fla. 441, text 448, 33 So....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. State, 87-1465
...same offense. See Hamilton v. State, 129 Fla. 219, 176 So. 89 (1937); Croft v. State, 109 Fla. 188, 146 So. 649 (1933); Billings v. State, 89 Fla. 309, 103 So. 628 (1925); Bean v. State, 469 So.2d 768 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). We reject King's claim that the indictment in this case was legally f......
-
Miles v. State
... ... inconsistent in character, are charged in a single count, in ... violation of the rule condemning duplicity ... That position is ... untenable. The style employed in drafting the information has ... been approved by this Court. See Billings v. State, ... 1925, 89 Fla. 309, 103 So. 628; Hamilton v. State, ... 1939, 129 Fla. 219, 176 So. 89, 112 A.L.R. 1013; Holder ... v. State, 1939, 136 Fla. 880, 187 So. 781 ... Next, appellant ... argued that there was no proof of the corpus delicti when the ... trial court permitted ... ...
-
Stratton v. State
...that the intent to kidnap and confine, etc., may be 'inferred from the character of the illegal acts clearly shown.' Billings v. State, 89 Fla. 309, 103 So. 628, 629. Thus the jury, upon the facts before it, was warranted in concluding that appellant had the requisite intent, and that he co......
- State v. Cawthon