Harris v. State
| Decision Date | 27 February 1907 |
| Citation | 53 Fla. 37,43 So. 311 |
| Parties | HARRIS v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Duval County; Samuel T. Shaylor Judge.
Charles Harris was convicted of larceny, and brings error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
A ruling of the trial court, denying a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the law and the evidence, can only be reviewed in the appellate court when such motion and the exception to the ruling thereon is evidenced by a bill of exceptions. Such motion has no place in the record proper.
A verdict must be responsive to the charge, and consistent, and find everything that is necessary to enable the court to render judgment.
Under an indictment for receiving stolen goods, knowing same to have been stolen, a verdict of 'guilty of receiving stolen goods' is bad, as not responsive to the indictment.
A motion in arrest of judgment lies only for matter appearing on the record. It is the proper remedy for a verdict which is upon its face so defective as a matter of record that judgment cannot legally be entered thereon; but, when matter dehors the record has to be resorted to for the purpose of showing that a verdict is erroneous, it cannot be reached by motion in arrest of judgment. In the case of McDonald v State, 46 Fla. 149, 35 So. 72, this distinction has been overlooked, and upon this question of practice that case is overruled.
COUNSEL Walter M. Davis, for plaintiff in error.
W. H Ellis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The information under which the plaintiff in error was prosecuted in the criminal court of record in and for the county of Duval contained two counts. The first count charged the defendant with the larceny of one coat, of the value of $15 and one pair of pants of the value of $10, all of the value of $25. The second count charged that the defendant did have, receive, buy, and aid in the concealment of one coat, of the value of $15, and one pair of pants, of the value of $10, all of the value of $25, before that feloniously stolen, taken, and carried away; he, the said defendant, then and there well knowing that the said property had before that been stolen, taken, and carried away. The defendant was tried and convicted on the 29th day of August, 1906; the jury rendering a verdict in words as follows: 'We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of receiving stolen goods; so say we all.' The defendant's motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial were overruled by the court, he was sentenced to serve one year in the state prison at hard labor, and seeks relief from this judgment and sentence by writ of error.
The assignments of error are that the court erred in overruling the motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial.
There is no bill of exceptions in this case. The motion for a new trial appears in the record proper. Where such motion is found only in the record proper, we cannot consider it. McDonald v. State, 46 Fla. 149, 35 So. 72.
The motion in arrest of judgment charges that the verdict of the jury is vague, uncertain, and legally insufficient, and that it does not convict the defendant of any crime known to the laws of Florida.
It is contended on the part of the state that the trial court did not err in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment, because such a motion is not the proper remedy for a wrong verdict. In support of this contention, we are referred to the case of McDonald v. State, 46 Fla. 149, 35 So. 72, which cites Bacon v. State, 22 Fla. 51, and other cases decided by this court. The statement of the sixth headnote in Bacon v. State, that 'a motion in arrest of judgment is not a proper remedy for a wrong verdict' is unfortunate and misleading in the use of the word 'wrong,' when what was meant is that such a motion does not lie because of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. This is apparent from the facts stated in the opinion. Where the phraseology of that headnote has been subsequently used in our decisions, it must be understood that it has been used in that sense. The insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict cannot be made the ground of a motion in arrest of judgment. This motion will not reach objections depending upon facts dehors the record.
A verdict may technically be said to be a 'wrong verdict,' as well when it is perfect in form, but not supported by the evidence, as when it is on its face so imperfect in form or irresponsive to the issues as to be a nullity. In the former case it cannot be assailed by motion in arrest of judgment, but in the latter case it can be. In the case of McDonald v. State, 46 Fla. 149, 35 So 72, this court has evidently overlooked this distinction, and upon this question of practice that case is overruled wherein it seems to conflict with the present holding. The form of the verdict in that case was sufficient, and matters dehors the record had to be resorted to to make the erroneousness of it to appear. In short, the true rule is that, when a verdict is upon its face so defective as a matter of record that judgment cannot legally be entered thereon, then a motion in arrest of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vogel v. State
... ... 884; Sawyer v ... State, 94 Fla. 60, 113 So. 736 ... [124 ... Fla. 415] Such motions are made after verdict and before ... judgment, but they are not favored. When a verdict is ... defective on its face a motion in arrest of judgment is the ... proper method of attack. See Harris v. State, 53 ... Fla. 37, 43 So. 311 ... The ... verdict, however, must be so defective as a matter of record ... that judgment cannot be legally entered thereon. Harris v ... State, supra ... If the ... verdict finds an accused person guilty of an offense not ... ...
-
Blackshare v. State
...A verdict finding defendant guilty of receiving stolen property is insufficient to support a judgment or sentence. 44 So. 940; 54 Fla. 96; 43 So. 311; 55 Ga. 191; 38 La.Ann. 357; 67 P. 42; 135 Cal. 61. It is necessary to show that the intent to steal existed at the time of the taking. 103 A......
-
Channell v. State
...Dollars as to Count II. So Say We All.' Appellant contends that the verdicts are a nullity and relies upon the case of Harris v. State, 1907, 53 Fla. 37, 43 So. 311. The verdict in that case 'We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of receiving stolen goods; so say we all.' The Supreme Cour......
-
Kimball v. Territory of Arizona
...Stephanus, 53 Or. 135, 99 P. 428; State v. Pollock, 105 Mo.App. 273, 79 S.W. 980; State v. De Witt, 186 Mo. 61, 84 S.W. 956; Harris v. State, 53 Fla. 37, 43 So. 311; v. Parker, 152 N.C. 790, 67 S.E. 35. Counsel for the respondent do not, as we understand their position, controvert the gener......