King v. State

Citation42 Fla. 260,28 So. 206
PartiesKING v. STATE.
Decision Date22 May 1900
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida

Error to criminal court of record, Duval county; John L. Doggett Judge.

M. B King was convicted of obstructing an officer, and aiding in an escape, and brings error. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. Section 2591, Rev. St., providing that whoever aids or assists a prisoner in escaping, or attempting to escape, from an officer or person who has the lawful custody of such prisoner, shall be punished, etc., does not so describe the offense intended to be created as to come within the rule that an indictment or information following the language of a statute without further expansion will be sufficient.

2. An essential of the crime created by section 2591, Rev. St., is that aid and assistance to escape, or attempt to escape, must be given to a prisoner in lawful custody, and, under section 2892, an allegation that the prisoner was at the time of being assisted to escape held in lawful custody of a known public officer authorized to have such custody will be sufficient.

COUNSEL A. W. Cockrell & Son, for plaintiff in error.

William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

MABRY J.

An information was filed in the criminal court of record for Duval county against plaintiff in error and five others charging them in separate counts with obstructing an officer in the lawful execution of a legal duty, and in aiding and assisting a prisoner to escape. A motion to quash and a demurrer to the separate counts were overruled, and, after severance, plaintiff in error was tried, and a conviction obtained under the second count.

A motion for new trial was overruled, but this ruling is not assigned as error, there being no bill of exceptions or charges of the court in the record.

The second count of the information, omitting formal beginning is as follows, viz.: That 'M. B. King, Richard Edwards, Charles Williams, Willis Wilson, R. W. Williams, and John R. Williams, of the county and state aforesaid, on the 26th day of June, A. D. 1899, in the county and state aforesaid, then and there well knowing that one Richard Mitchell was then and there a deputy sheriff of Duval county, Florida, legally authorized to apprehend persons committing a breach of the peace, did then and there knowingly and willfully aid and assist one Mose Robertson, who had then and there committed a breach of the peace, and who was then and there a prisoner under arrest, and in the legal custody of the said Richard Mitchell, to escape from the custody and control of the said Richard Mitchell by then and there pushing, shoving, jostling, and mashing the said Richard Mitchell, and breaking his hold on the said Mose Robertson, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Florida.'

The grounds of attack on the information are: (1) No criminal offense is issuably stated against the defendant.

(2) Issuable averments are not made from which it is made to appear that the alleged deputy sheriff was then and there authorized to arrest and convey to prison the said Mose Robertson, nor that said deputy sheriff was then and there in the execution of legal process, or the lawful execution of a legal duty.

(3) It is not made to appear that said Mose Robertson was then and there a prisoner in the legal custody of the said Mitchell.

(4) It is not made to appear from the issuable facts set up that the said deputy sheriff was then and there in the discharge of any duty imposed upon him by law in reference to said Mose Robertson.

(5) It is not made to appear that said Mose Robertson was then and there committing a breach of the peace when he was so arrested by the said deputy sheriff, nor that the latter had or exhibited any warrant authorizing him to arrest the said Mose Robertson for a breach of the peace theretofore or then committed.

The errors assigned are: (1) The court below erred in denying the motion to quash the information.

(2) The court below erred in overruling the demurrer to the information.

(3) The verdict of the jury was insufficient to support the judgment rendered against the defendant below.

(4) The court should have discharged the defendant upon the verdict rendered.

(5) The court erred to the injury of the defendant, as shown by the record.

The last ground assigned is too general to demand attention by the court.

We discover nothing in the verdict that will sustain the assignments numbered 3 and 4. The record shows that a severance was had as to plaintiff in error, and he alone was put on trial before the jury that rendered the verdict. It reads as follows: 'We, the jury, find the defendant guilty in the second count, as charged in the information. R. L. Gardner, Foreman.' Counsel have not pointed out any defects in the form of this verdict, and there is nothing apparent to us radically defective about it.

Counsel state in their brief that the second count of the information was sustained under section 2591 of the Revised Statutes reading as follows: 'Whoever aids or assists a prisoner in escaping, or attempting to escape, from an officer, or person who has the lawful custody of such prisoner, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.' This statute does not so describe the offense intended to be created as to come within the rule that an indictment or information following substantially its language without further expansion will be sufficient. Com. v. Filburn, 119 Mass. 297; State v. Lawrence, 43 Kan. 125, 23 P. 157; Vaughan v. State, 9 Tex. App. 563. A person may in several ways aid a prisoner to escape from lawful custody without knowledge of the fact, and, though coming within the strict letter of the statute, would not be within its spirit and meaning. Thus...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Barber v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 31, 1906
    ...v. State, 40 Fla. 527, text 534, 25 So. 144; Shiver v. State, 41 Fla. 630, text 635, 27 So. 36; King v. State, 42 Fla. 260, text 266, 28 So. 206; Long State, 42 Fla. 509, text 516, 28 So. 775; Dickens v. State (Fla.) 38 So. 909; Caesar v. State (Fla.) 39 So. 470; Johnson v. State (Fla.) 40 ......
  • Williams v. State, 80-1368
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 7, 1982
    ...showing may support a reasonable inference of lawful custody, has not met the test to support a criminal conviction. King v. State, 42 Fla. 260, 28 So. 206 (Fla.1900); Fouts v. State, 374 So.2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Abbott v. State, 326 So.2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Estep v. State, 318 So......
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • March 20, 1906
    ...embarrassed in the preparation of their defense, and the indictment is sufficient after trial on a motion in arrest of judgment. See King v. State, supra; section Rev. St. 1892; Long v. State, 42 Fla. 509, 28 So. 775; People v. Nash, 1 Idaho, 206; 2 Am. & Eng. Enc. Pl. & Pr. 802; Green v. S......
  • SanChez v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 12, 2012
    ...Court was concerned that the statute as written could be applied to someone who only inadvertently helped an escapee. King v. State, 42 Fla. 260, 28 So. 206 (1900). It observed that the legislature could not have intended such an application and noted a commentator's suggestion that an info......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT