Hall v. State
| Decision Date | 04 December 1925 |
| Citation | 90 Fla. 719,107 So. 246 |
| Parties | HALL v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
En Banc.
Error to Circuit Court, Lee County; George W. Whitehurst, Judge.
Doyle Hall was convicted of burning a building with intent to injure the insurer, and he brings error.
Reversed and a new trial awarded.
Syllabus by the Court
Indictment charging offense substantially in language of statute or in language of equivalent import should not be quashed (Rev Gen. St. 1920, §§ 6063, 6064). An indictment should not be quashed if it charges the offense substantially in the language of the statute or in language of equivalent import. Sections 6063, 6064, Rev. Gen. St. 1920; Akin v State, 98 So. 609, 86 Fla. 564.
Where circumstantial evidence is relied on, circumstances, taken together, must lead on whole to reasonable and moral certainty that accused and no one else committed offense charged and be inconsistent with innocence. When circumstantial evidence is relied on for conviction, the circumstances, when taken together, must be of a conclusive nature and tendency, leading on the whole to a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused and no one else committed the offense charged. It is not sufficient that the facts create a strong probability of and be consistent with guilt. They must be inconsistent with innocence.
State has burden to show that burning charged as arson was with intent to injure insurer. (Rev. Gen. St. 1920, § 5111).
W. D. Bell, of Arcadia, and E. M. Magaha, of Ft. Myers, for plaintiff in error.
Rivers Buford, Atty. Gen., and Marvin C. McIntosh, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Doyle Hall was convicted in the circuit court of Lee county for unlawfully and feloniously setting fire to and burning a building, the property of Sam Williams, with intent to injure and defraud Rhode Island Insurance Company, a corporation; said buildings at the time being insured in said company. A motion to quash the indictment and for a new trial were appropriately made. Both these motions were denied, and writ of error was taken from this court.
The first assignment of error is based on the denial of the motion to quash the indictment.
An indictment should not be quashed if it charges the offense substantially in the language of the statute or in language of equivalent import. Sections 6063 and 6064, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920; Akin v. State, 98 So. 609, 86 Fla. 564, and cases there cited. It cannot be said that the indictment in this case 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.
The next and only additional assignment of error necessary to be discussed here is grounded on the refusal of the trial court to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial.
The evidence in this case was entirely circumstantial, and, under the statute (section 5111, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920), the burden was on the state to prove that Doyle Hall did unlawfully and feloniously burn a building belonging to Sam Williams, with intent to injure Rhode Island Insurance Company, and that at the time of the burning said building was insured against loss by fire in said Rhode Island Insurance Company.
The rule seems to be that when circumstantial evidence is relied on for conviction the circumstances, when taken together,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cochran v. State
... ... McArthur v. State, 351 So.2d 972, 976 n. 12 (Fla.1977). Where the element of premeditation is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence, the evidence relied upon by the state must be inconsistent with every other reasonable inference. Wilson v. State, 493 So.2d 1019 (Fla.1986); Hall v. State, 403 So.2d 1321 (Fla.1981) ... But the question of whether the evidence fails to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence is for the jury to determine, and where there is substantial, competent evidence to support the jury verdict, the verdict will not be reversed ... ...
-
Jones v. State
...evidence deemed insufficient to link the defendant to a prison convict murder; manslaughter conviction reversed); Hall v. State, 90 Fla. 719, 107 So. 246 (1925) (state's evidence deemed insufficient to link defendant to an arson; arson conviction reversed); Pate v. State, 72 Fla. 97, 72 So.......
-
Crain v. State
...evidence must lead "to a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused and no one else committed the offense charged." Hall v. State, 107 So. 246, 247 (Fla.1925). Circumstances that create nothing more than a strong suspicion that the defendant committed the crime are not sufficient to su......
-
Lamb v. State
...import. Sections 6063 and 6064, Rev. Gen. Stats. of Florida 1920; Akin v. State, 98 So. 609, 86 Fla. 564, and cases cited; Hall v. State (Fla.) 107 So. 246, this term. Indictment is sufficient, unless so vague, inconsistent, and indefinite as to mislead accused, embarrass him in preparing d......