Clark v. State
| Decision Date | 01 December 1914 |
| Citation | 67 So. 135,68 Fla. 433 |
| Parties | CLARK v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Jackson County; D. J. Jones, Judge.
J. C Clark was convicted of embezzlement, and brings error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
An indictment should not be quashed on account of any defect in the form thereof, unless the court shall be of the opinion that the indictment is so vague, indistinct, 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.
Testimony given by a bankrupt in bankruptcy proceedings, under the provisions of the seventh section of the United States Bankruptcy Act (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 548 [Comp St. 1913, s 9591]), is not admissible against such bankrupt in a criminal prosecution instituted against him for embezzlement in the state court.
COUNSEL Price & Price, of Marianna, for plaintiff in error.
T. F West, Atty. Gen., and C. O. Andrews, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
J. C. Clark and P. S. Forrester were indicted for the crime of embezzlement, alleged to have been committed by them while engaged in the mercantile business as copartners under the firm name and style of Clark & Forrester. The defendants were alleged to be the agents, servants, and trustees of the American Agricultural Chemical Company, a corporation, and, while acting as such agents, servants, and trustees of such company, were charged with the embezzlement of the sum of $1,391.90 in money, the property of such company, which the defendants had collected and failed and refused to pay over on demand. A motion for severance was granted, and J. C. Clark was tried and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000 and the costs of the prosecution, or, in default of such payment, to confinement in the county jail at hard labor for a period of six months.
The first assignment is based upon the overruling of the motion to quash the indictment, which is based upon several grounds, all of which question the sufficiency of the indictment in certain specified particulars. We do not copy either the indictment or the motion. Suffice it to say that the indictment, which is obviously based upon section 3308 of the General Statutes of Florida, though rather loosely drawn and by no means a model, we think, sufficiently complies with the requirements of such statute to warrant the overruling of the motion to quash. It is not characterized by the defects which we held in Townsend v. State, 63 Fla. 46, 57 So. 611, to be of such a nature as to vitiate the indictment; therefore this case, which is cited by the defendant in support of this assignment, is not controlling. Following the policy of the Legislature as expressed in section 3962 of the General Statutes of Florida, we have several times held:
'An indictment should not be quashed on account of any defect in the form thereof, unless the court shall be of the opinion that the indictment is so vague, indistinct, 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 Dickens v. State, 50 Fla. 17, 38 So. 909; Strobhar v. State, 55 Fla. 167, 47 So. 4; Mills v. State, 58 Fla. 74, 51 So. 278.
We must hold that this assignment has not been sustained.
We next take up for consideration the tenth assignment of error, which is as follows:
'The court erred in permitting the witness Nannie E. McAliley court reporter in and for the Ninth judicial circuit of Florida, to read as evidence before the jury her notes of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Mitchell v. Kelly
...privilege against self incrimination protects against the use of testimony compelled under Federal law. See Clark v. State, 1914, 68 Fla. 433, 436, 67 So. 135, 136, where this Court reversed a conviction in which was used against the defendant testimony compelled under Federal Bankruptcy la......
-
United States v. Feldman
...threat of judicial compulsion in litigation in a state court. No controlling authority has been cited for this proposition. Clark v. State, 68 Fla. 433, 67 So. 133, the only case relied upon by the appellant, presents the converse of the situation at bar. There testimony which the defendant......
-
Thomas v. State
... ... also, Humphreys v. State, 17 Fla. 381; Schley v ... State, 48 Fla. 53, 37 So. 518; Dickens v ... State, 50 Fla. 17, 38 So. 909; Strobhar v ... State, 55 Fla. 167, 47 So. 4; Mills v. State, ... 58 Fla. 74, 51 So. 278; Edwards v. State, 62 Fla ... 40, 56 So. 401; [74 Fla. 206] Clark v. State, 68 ... Fla. 433, 67 So. 135. Counsel for the defendant admit in ... their brief that if the defendant had been prosecuted as ... 'a common dealer of liquor in terms of the statute' ... he would be beyond danger of being prosecuted for any ... 'specific act covering the period of time ... ...
-
Henry v. State
... ... against her. See section 3962, Florida Com. Laws, 1914; ... section 6064, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920. The motion in arrest of ... judgment was therefore properly overruled. See Schley v ... State, 48 Fla. 53, 37 So. 518; Dickens v ... State, 50 Fla. 17, 38 So. 909; Clark v. State, ... 68 Fla. 433, 67 So. 135. If, however, there was any doubt as ... to the omission of the word tending to embarrass the accused ... in her defense, the point should have been presented by ... motion to quash. See Mills v. State, 58 Fla. 74, 51 ... The ... first and second ... ...