Johns v. State

• Decision Date: 28 July 1903
• Citation: 46 Fla. 153,35 So. 71
• Parties: JOHNS v. STATE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

35 So. 71

46 Fla. 153

JOHNS v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

July 28, 1903

Error to Circuit Court, Baker County; Rhydon M. Call, Judge.

Johnnie Johns was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. Verdicts in criminal cases should be certain, and impart a definite meaning, free from ambiguity. Any words that convey beyond a reasonable doubt the meaning and intention of the jury are sufficient, and all fair intendments should be made to sustain them. If the intention is clearly manifested, bad spelling or faulty grammar will not vitiate the verdict. The rule of idem sonans is applicable in construing verdicts.

2. Where part of a witness' answer to a question is admissible and part inadmissible, a motion to strike such answer is properly refused, unless it is confined specifically to the inadmissible part of such answer.

3. It is competent for the state, in a prosecution for murder, to prove threats made by the accused against the deceased although made a long time prior to the homicide; but in determining their weight the jury may consider their remoteness from the time of homicide.

4. Evidence examined, and found sufficient to sustain the verdict.

COUNSEL L. E. Wade, for plaintiff in error.

J. B Whitfield, Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

SHACKLEFORD J.

The plaintiff in error (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant'), at the spring term, 1902, of the circuit court for Baker county, was indicted for murder in the first degree, and was tried, convicted of murder in the first degree, with recommendation to the mercy of the court and sentenced to confinement in the state prison for life, at the spring term, 1903, of said court, and seeks a reversal by writ of error.

The first assignment of error is that 'the court erred in receiving the verdict in this cause, and in entering and rendering judgment upon the verdict.'

The said verdict, as shown by the transcript, reads as follows 'Wee, the jury, find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree and recomend him to the mercy of the court, so say we all'--the same being signed by one of the jury as foreman.

The assault made upon this verdict is because the first word therein is spelt 'wee' instead of 'we.' This error is not well assigned. 'A verdict will not be held void merely because expressed in bad English, if it clearly manifests the intention and finding of the jury upon the issues submitted to them.' 2 Thompson on Trials, § 2644. Also, see Snyder v. United States, 112 U.S. 216, 5 S.Ct. 118, 28 L.Ed. 697; Abbott's Trial Brief Criminal Causes (2d Ed.) 722, and authorities there cited. The spelling of the word 'wee' in said verdict is no more open to attack than the spelling of the word 'recomend' therein, of which defendant had the benefit. Both words clearly manifest the intention and finding of the jury. As was said by this court in Higginbotham v. State, 42 Fla. 573, 29 So. 410, 89 Am. St. Rep. 237: 'Verdicts in criminal cases should be certain, and impart a definite meaning, free from ambiguity. Any words that convey, beyond a reasonable doubt, the meaning and intention of the jury, are sufficient, and all fair intendments should be made to sustain them. If the intention is clearly manifested, bad spelling or faulty grammar will not vitiate the verdict.' Also, see Long v. State, 42 Fla. 612, 28 So. 855. Upon this point the rule of idem sonans is applicable. See State v. Wilson, 40 La Ann. 751, 5 So. 52, 1 L. R. A. 795.

The second error assigned is that 'the court erred in permitting Henry Yarbrough's testimony to go to the jury in this case.'

The testimony of the said Yarbrough, as found in the record, was as follows: 'My name is Henry Yarbrough. I live near Baxter, Florida, in this county, and know Johnnie Johns. I had a talk with Johnnie Johns about three weeks before Lamb Bryant was killed, and Johnnie said Lamb owed him ten cents, and if he did not pay it he was going to kill him.'

The defendant objected to this testimony 'as being no part of the res gestae, too remote, and it was not shown but the money had not been paid, if due.' It is not shown whether the questions were objected to, or whether there was a motion made to strike out the testimony. Be that as it may, we might dispose of this error upon the principle that the objection was too broad and general. Part of said testimony was clearly admissible. Higginbotham v. State, supra; Hodge v. State, 26 Fla. 11, 7 So. 593. However, as appears from the brief of counsel for defendant, the particular part of the testimony objected to was as to the threat made by defendant against the deceased. No error was committed...