Horner v. State
Decision Date | 12 February 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 62-264,62-264 |
Citation | 149 So.2d 863 |
Parties | Charles E. HORNER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Manners & Amoon, and Richard M. Bale, Miami, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Herbert P. Benn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and Glenn C. Mincer, Asst. State Atty., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and HORTON and HENDRY, JJ.
The appellant, Charles E. Horner, seeks review of a judgment of conviction entered in the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County, Florida, pursuant to a jury verdict finding him guilty of the crime of extortion. A sentence of ten years' confinement in the state penitentiary followed. We affirm.
Section 836.05, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., provides:
'Whoever, either verbally or by a written or printed communication, maliciously threatens to accuse another of any crime or offense, or by such communication maliciously threatens an injury to the person, property or reputation of another, or maliciously threatens The information filed against the appellant was framed in three counts and provided, in pertnent part, as follows:
to expose another to disgrace, or to expose any secret affecting another, or to impute any deformity of lack of chastity to another, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatsoever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened, or any other person, to do any act or refrain from doing any act against his will, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding ten years.'
'RICHARD E. GERSTEIN, State Attorney of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, * * * information makes that CHARLES E. HORNER on the 15th day of March, 1962, * * * did * * * unlawfully and maliciously threaten an injury to the reputation of another, to--wit: _____, with intent to compel the said _____, against his will, to refrain from testifying against him * * * which testimony was to be given in a criminal proceeding in which the said CHARLES E. HORNER is a defendant, in violation of Florida Statute 836.05. * * *
'And RICHARD E. GERSTEIN, * * * further information makes that CHARLES E. HORNER, * * * did * * * verbally and maliciously threaten to expose another, to-wit: _____, to disgrace, with intent thereby to compel the said _____, against his will, to refrain from testifying against him * * * in a criminal proceeding in which the said CHARLES E. HORNER is a defendant, in violation of Florida Statute 836.05. * * *
'And RICHARD E. GERSTEIN, * * * further information makes that CHARLES E. HORNER * * * did * * * verbally and maliciously threaten to impute the lack of chastity to another, to-wit: _____, with intent therby to compel the said _____, against his will, to refrain from testifying against him * * * in a criminal proceeding in which the said CHARLES E. HORNER is a defendant, in violation of Florida Statute 836.05, contrary to the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.'
The appellant's motion to quash the information was denied and the cause went to trial before a jury. The state's principal witness testified in substance that the appellant called him on the telephone and threatened to expose him as one possessing a certain unsavory characteristic and cost him his job with the City of Miami Beach if he appeared as a witness against appellant in a pending criminal proceeding. This testimony was corroborated by his supervisor, William Johnson. Additional testimony was taken and ultimately a verdict was rendered finding the appellant guilty on all three counts. Appellant was adjudged guilty and his motion for new trial denied. This appeal followed.
The appellant contends the information was insufficient and should have been quashed because it fails to charge a crime in that the nature and substance of the alleged threat to cause injury to the reputation of the state's principal witness was not described with sufficient particularity. We find this contention to be without merit.
The information was for one offense, though it was charged in three counts to have been committed by different methods embraced within the alternative provisions of the statute. The punishment and the offense would be the same no matter upon which count or counts the appellant should be found guilty, and his guilt would be the same whether he violated the statute by doing the acts charged in one count or by doing every act embraced within all the counts. The jury found the appellant guilty upon every count, thereby determining that he had committed the offense in every manner charged. As stated in Bueno v. State, 40 Fla. 160, 23 So.2d 862:
'Where an indictment or information contains good and bad counts, and there is a general verdict of guilty rendered upon the whole, a judgment and sentence will be sustained if the indictment or information contains one count in which the offense is adequately set forth, provided the sentence be within the limits of the punishment prescribed for the offense charged in the good count.'
See also Mixon v. State, Fla.1951, 54 So.2d 190; Jarrell v. State, 135 Fla. 736, 185 So. 873; Poyner v. State, 81 Fla. 726, 66 So. 762; Jordan v. State, 22 Fla. 528. Since the sentence here was for ten years, we must determine whether the information contains one count in which the offense is adequately set forth.
Having thoroughly scrutinized the statute and the information, we hold that the information, viewed as a whole, 1 and each of its counts, legally and properly charged an offense under § 836.05, supra. They tracked the language of the statute, 2 which is not couched in terms so generical as to require a descent to the particulars. 3 In addition, th...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anthony v. State, 70--457
...Fla.App.1967, 193 So.2d 617; Hooper v. State, Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 769; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 24; Horner v. State, Fla.App.1963, 149 So.2d 863; Jordan v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 418; Andrews v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 505; and Norris v. State, Fla.App.1963......
-
Sarno v. State
...62 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979); Jacobson v. State, 375 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 385 So.2d 758 (Fla.1980); Horner v. State, 149 So.2d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963), cert. denied, 162 So.2d 904 (Fla.1964). We note again in passing that were the Florida Evidence Code applicable to this cas......
-
State v. Moss
...quash, although the imposition of two sentences would be error. See Mixon v. State, Fla.1951,54 So.2d 190, 192--193; Horner v. State, Fla.App.1963, 149 So.2d 863, 864--865. Since neither the information as a whole nor either of its counts is duplicitous, ground 5 of appellee's motion to qua......
-
Hyatt v. State, 73--1537
...v. State, 29 Fla. 558, 10 So. 686; Camp v. State, 58 Fla. 12, 50 So. 537; Milton v. State, 91 Fla. 989, 108 So. 886; Horner v. State, Fla.App.1963, 149 So.2d 863; Hamilton v. State, Fla.App.1963, 152 So.2d 793; McDougal v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 539; Scarborough v. State, Fla.App.19......