Brown v. State
Decision Date | 15 November 1938 |
Citation | 184 So. 518,135 Fla. 30 |
Parties | BROWN v. STATE. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; C. E. Chillingworth Judge.
Tommie Lee Brown was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
COUNSEL Edgar C. Thompson, Harry Dietz, and H. J Quincey, all of West Palm Beach, for plaintiff in error.
Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and Tyrus A. Norwood Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
On the 3rd day of February, 1937, a jury of Palm Beach County Florida, filed its verdict in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, finding Tommie Lee Brown guilty of murder in the first degree. Plaintiff in Error was charged in an indictment rendered by a grand jury of said County with the unlawful killing of one Fred Holland in the County aforesaid on the 12th day of December, 1936. On February 19, 1937, plaintiff in error, Tommie Lee Brown, for said crime was by the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, sentenced to be electrocuted. From this death sentence or judgment writ of error was taken, transcript of record perfected, and briefs filed on the part of counsel for plaintiff in error and the State of Florida, and several legal reasons are presented and argued seeking a reversal of the said judgment of conviction. The parties in this opinion will be referred to as the state and defendant, as they appeared in the Court below.
On January 13, 1937, defendant filed a plea in abatement in which it was alleged that J. W. Salisbury was not the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit and that his name appearing on the indictment as the prosecuting officer therefore rendered the indictment void. The material portions of the plea in abatement are, viz:
The commissions of the Honorables J. W. Salisbury and Louis E. Maier are attached and by appropriate allegations made a part of the said plea in abatement. The State of Florida, by the State Attorney, directed a demurrer to the plea in abatement, the grounds of which are (a) the plea in abatement fails to set forth a defense; (b) the plea on its face shows that J. W. Salisbury is the qualified acting State Attorney; (c) the plea is vague, indefinite and uncertain. The demurrer was by the lower court sustained and this ruling is assigned as error. The record shows that on June 20, 1933, the Hon. J. W. Salisbury was appointed State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida for a period of four years from and after June 20, 1933. The indictment here signed by J. W. Salisbury, State Attorney of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, was filed in Palm Beach County, Florida, on the 7th day of January, A. D. 1937, and when filed the period of four years for which the State Attorney was commissioned had not expired and would not expire until June 20, 1937. We hold that this assignment is without merit. See Section 45 of Article 5 of the Constitution of Florida adopted in November, 1934; Chapter 17085, Acts of 1935, Laws of Florida; State ex rel. Landis v. Bird and Viney, 120 Fla. 780, 163 So. 248.
It is next contended that the lower court erred in overruling and denying the defendant's motion to quash the indictment on the grounds, to-wit: (a) That the wound inflicted on the deceased was not done with a premeditated design to effect his death; (b) the venue of the place of inflicting the alleged mortal wound is not alleged; (c) the indictment fails to allege facts constituting murder; (d) that J. W. Salisbury is not the legal prosecuting officer of said court, but that Louis Maier is and the indictment fails to have his name attached thereto. The test of the sufficiency of an indictment under the law of Florida is whether or not it is so vague, inconsistent and indefinite as to mislead the accused and embarrass him in the preparation of his defense or expose him after conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense. See Lamb v. State, 90 Fla. 844, 107 So. 530; Ward v. State, 83 Fla. 311, 91 So. 189. We fail to find error on the part of the lower court in denying the motion to quash.
It is next contended that the lower court erred in admitting into evidence for the consideration of the jury, over the defendant's objection, a confession freely and voluntarily made without fear of punishment or hope of reward. The confession assigned as error is:
'Mr. Salisbury: If your Honor please, I want to read this confession to the jury.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Flowers v. State
... ... give a general description of the negro you saw there at that ... time? A. Yes sir, I got an impression in my mind of the negro ... very good ... 'Q. What was ... his general description? A. He was a negro around 5 foot, 8 ... or 9 inches tall, slender, I would call him brown skinned, ... and walked sort of quick like, is the description I give the ... other officers there after seeing this negro ... 'Q. How was he ... dressed? A. He had on a brown hat and the hat was turned up ... all around and I would call it a dark green shirt, I noticed ... when he ... ...
-
Frazier v. State
...from the free will of the accused and is without inducement of hope, fear, or other illegal influence. * * *' See also Brown v. State, 1938, 135 Fla. 30, 184 So. 518. Our conclusion is that no error has been made to appear in the admission by the trial court of defendant's statement or of t......
-
Tucker v. State
...same justices who had concurred in Rimes addressed the same issue on facts directly on point with those in Tucker. In Brown v. State, 135 Fla. 30, 184 So. 518 (1938), the Court was asked to reverse a trial court's refusal to quash an indictment for first-degree murder which failed to allege......
-
Harrison v. State
... ... After announcing his ruling the witnesses whom he had heard ... were reexamined so that the jury could determine, not only ... from the evidence itself but from the manner in which it was ... obtained, how much credibility could be given it. Brown ... v. State, 135 Fla. 30, 184 So. 518 ... It is our view that ... no abuse of discretion was shown by the judge in performing ... his function of passing upon the admissibility and we have ... found no reason to interfere with the verdict of the jury ... because they were justified ... ...