Ex Parte Clarkson
| Decision Date | 09 August 1916 |
| Parties | Ex parte CLARKSON. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Original application by Harry B. Clarkson for a writ of habeas corpus. Writ discharged, and petitioner remanded.
Syllabus by the Court
The circuit court having jurisdiction to decide that the offense of embezzlement committed on one date is a different offense to an embezzlement committed the day before that date, its order, sustaining a demurrer to a plea of autrefois acquit will not be reviewed on habeas corpus.
COUNSEL H. M. Hampton, of Ocala, for petitioner.
T. F. West, Atty. Gen., and C. O. Andrews, Asst Atty. Gen., for the state.
Upon an original petition to this court, a writ of habeas corpus was granted Harry B. Clarkson. Upon the return to the writ, the petitioner moved his discharge.
From the return it appears that Clarkson was tried upon an indictment charging him with embezzling $500 from the Marion Hardware Company, a corporation, the date of the embezzlement being charged as August 15, 1915. A bill of particulars being demanded, an itemized statement was furnished by the state covering the dates July 2, 1914, to March 30, 1915. Upon the trial the defendant successfully objected to testimony offered, and the court directed a verdict of acquittal. Thereupon a new indictment was presented, alleging the embezzlement, being in the same language as the first indictment, excepting only the date was placed as April 1 1915, and the defendant was alleged to have been the president of the corporation, and not 'the president and general manager,' as in the former indictment. Again the defendant demanded a bill of particulars, and one was furnished, showing items beginning April 1, 1915, and continuing to July 31st. The defendant interposed a plea of autrefois acquit, and, a demurrer thereto being sustained this writ was promptly obtained.
Without a critical examination of the allegations of the plea, we are satisfied upon mature reflection that we are confronted, not with a question of jurisdiction, but a mere possible error in the ruling of the circuit court, and that therefore the writ of habeas corpus was improvidently allowed.
The circuit court has full power and jurisdiction to adjudge whether the offense was a separate or a continuing one. By his own action in demanding a bill of particulars, the petitioner shut off the state from proving any embezzlement subsequent to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. State
...defense to another prosecution based upon an alleged sale of intoxicating liquor prior to December 20, 1916. In the case of Ex parte Clarkson, 72 Fla. 220, 72 So. 675, the held that the bill of particulars furnished to the defendant precluded the state from proving any embezzlement subseque......
-
State v. Beamon
...143 So. 317 (1932); Smith v. State, 93 Fla. 238, 112 So. 70 (1927); Middleton v. State, 74 Fla. 234, 76 So. 785 (1917); Ex parte Clarkson, 72 Fla. 220, 72 So. 675 (1916). Also, the fact that the date charged in the first Information in this case was Nov. 26, 1972, does not control over a sp......
-
Martin v. Karel
...the bill of particulars to point out any defects in the indictment. See Middleton v. State, 74 Fla. 234, 76 So. 785, 787; Ex parte Clarkson, 72 Fla. 220, 72 So. 675; Branch State, 76 Fla. 558, 80 So. 482. It is clear, therefore, that no attack may be made upon the information in this case b......
-
Spencer v. Gomez
...on the statute of limitations, as that is a defense proper to be presented at the trial. See, also, 29 C.J. 44, 45, and Ex parte Clarkson, 72 Fla. 220, 72 So. 675. the question involved in the present case probably goes beyond a mere attempt to set up the statute of limitations as the groun......