Crowell v. State, 70--144
| Decision Date | 25 August 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 70--144,70--144 |
| Citation | 238 So.2d 690 |
| Parties | Cecil CROWELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Hughlan Long, Public Defender, and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, C.J., and BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.
The defendant was charged by information with the crime of assault to commit murder. He entered a plea of not guilty and waived jury trial. A non-jury trial was had in the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County which resulted in his being adjudicated guilty of aggravated assault and imposition of a sentence of two years in the state penitentiary.
Appellant seeks reversal of the judgment and sentence on the grounds that the trial court erred in finding the defendant guilty because the proof at trial failed to establish all material allegations of the information and that the proof varied materially from the bill of particulars.
The information by which the defendant was charged alleged that the crime was committed on the 25th of June, 1969. The proof offered by the state tended to show that the offense took place at a time different from that set forth in the information and bill of particulars. After all the evidence was presented by the state and the defendant, the state was allowed, over the objection of the defendant, to amend the bill of particulars to conform to the state's proof as to the date of the offense.
Appellant contends that he was prejudiced in his defense by the untimely amendment to the bill of particulars as he went to trial and prepared his defense to the charges based upon the state's allegation that the crime was committed on the date specified in the information and bill of particulars which was at a time when the defendant was in the Dade County Jail. We agree with defendant's contention and reverse. Thomas v. State, 74 Fla. 200, 76 So. 780; Daniel v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 14.
Accordingly the judgment and sentence are reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Beamon
...if there is an objection, by amending it to conform to the evidence adduced after presentation of the evidence. Crowell v. State, 238 So.2d 690 (Fla.App.3d 1970). Thus, it is clear that the bill of particulars on the first Information narrowed the date of the alleged offense to the date of ......
-
Perlman v. State, 71-824
...a material variance from the date set forth in the information as limited by the bill of particulars. See also Crowell v. State, Fla.App.1970, 238 So.2d 690; Crusoe v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 600. The introduction of evidence relating to the conduct of a gambling operation on dates o......
-
Hoffman v. State
...3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 367 So.2d 1124 (Fla.1979), and Perlman v. State, 269 So.2d 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), with Crowell v. State, 238 So.2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Hoffman contends that Beamon is an absolute bar to allowing a variance between the date alleged and proved and to amending......
-
Taylor v. State, 80-1111
...not, at any time, request leave to amend the statement of particulars.5 Hoffman suggests that the reader compare Holland with Crowell v. State, 238 So.2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), where the State was denied the right to amend a bill of particulars to show the correct date of the crime. There,......