Edwards v. State
| Decision Date | 13 November 1907 |
| Parties | EDWARDS v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Liberty County; John W. Malone, Judge.
Berry Edwards was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
In a judicial trial the verdict is a part of the record proper and any defect alleged to be upon the face of the verdict should be determined in the trial court upon a motion in arrest of judgment.
It is not essential that a verdict of assault with intent to commit murder shall state the degree of murder.
All fair intendments consistent with the record should be indulged in favor of the verdict that is responsive to the issues made by the pleadings.
A verdict of assault with intent to commit murder is sufficient, upon a proper indictment, to warrant a sentence for an assault with intent to commit murder in the first or second degree; the penalty being the same in either degree. Intent to commit murder is not an element of murder in the third degree under our statute.
COUNSEL Rivers H. Buford, for plaintiff in error.
W. H Ellis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error was convicted on a charge of assault with intent to commit murder. The only contention made here on the writ of error is that the verdict is improper because it does not state the degree of murder the defendant intended to commit when the assault was made.
The verdict is a part of the record proper, and any defect appearing upon the face of it should be determined upon a motion in arrest of judgment. Harris v. State (Fla.) 43 So. 311.
Assuming that the point raised is properly presented, in the absence of a motion in arrest of judgment, simply by being assigned as error here, it cannot be sustained.
The law prescribes the same punishment for an assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree as in the second degree and intent is not an element of murder in the third degree. The statutes of the state do not require or make it necessary that a verdict of assault with intent to commit murder shall state the degree of murder. See Davis v. State, 35 Fla. 614, 17 So. 565; Griffin v. State, 48 Fla. 42, 37 So. 209; Jordan v. State, 50 Fla. 94, 39 So. 155; Pyke v. State, 47 Fla. 93, 36 So. 577; Williams v. State, 41 Fla. 295, 26 So. 184.
Section 3208 of the General Statutes of 1906, requires verdicts to state the degree of murder of which the defendant is found guilty; but it does not apply to verdicts of assault with intent to commit murder.
The indictment charged Berry Edwards with an assault with intent to murder Samuel Dyer. A plea of not guilty was entered. The verdict should be read in connection with the indictment. When so considered, the intention of the jury to find the defendant guilty of the offense charged is clearly apparent. O'Neal v. State, 54 Fla. ----, 44 So. 940; Freeman v. State, 50 Fla. 38, 39 So. 785. Having ascertained the intention of the jury as expressed in the verdict, the legal meaning and effect of the verdict are to be determined. All fair intendments...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. State
...Fla. 573, 29 So. 410, 89 Am. St. Rep. 237; Long v. State, 42 Fla. 612, 28 So. 855; O'Neal v. State, 54 Fla. 96, 44 So. 940; Edwards v. State, 54 Fla. 40, 45 So. 21; Williams v. State, 45 Fla. 128, 34 So. Freeman v. State, 50 Fla. 38, 39 So. 785. The eighth, ninth, and tenth assignments of e......
-
Graham v. State
...require or make it necessary that a verdict of assault with intent to commit murder shall state the degree of murder.' See, Edwards v. State, 54 Fla. 40, 45 So. 21, prior decisions of this court. As we also said in the case just cited: 'The punishment for assault with intent to commit murde......
-
Rentz v. Live Oak Bank
...to withstand the attack made upon it; therefore the motion in arrest of judgment was properly overruled. As we held in Edwards v. State, 54 Fla. 40, 45 So. 21, 'all fair intendments consistent with the record be indulged in favor of the verdict that is responsive to the issues made by the p......
-
Yarborough v. State
...v. State, 81 Fla. 649, 88 So. 621; Richardson v. State, 72 Fla. 154, 72 So. 665; O'Neal v. State, 54 Fla. 96, 44 So. 940; Edwards v. State, 54 Fla. 40, 45 So. 21; Washington v. State, 55 Fla. 194, 46 So. Bunch v. State, 58 Fla. 9, 50 So. 534, 138 Am. St. Rep. 91; 16 C.J. 1099. The defendant......