Knowles v. State
| Decision Date | 15 September 1923 |
| Citation | 97 So. 716,86 Fla. 270 |
| Parties | KNOWLES v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Dade County; W. Hunt Harris Judge.
George Knowles was convicted of receiving stolen property of the value of more than $50, and of aiding in the concealment thereof, with knowledge that it was stolen, and he brings error.
Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
Motion in arrest of judgment presents only errors apparent on record. The office of a motion in arrest of judgment is to present errors apparent upon the record; it is not available to reach errors not apparent upon the record.
Decision on motion for bill of particulars by accused largely discretionary. The granting or overruling of a motion for a bill of particulars, made by defendant in a criminal case rests largely in the discretion of the trial court.
Denial of more complete bill of particulars on charge in count on which accused acquitted harmless error. It is not harmful error to deny to a defendant, upon his application, a more complete bill of particulars of a charge contained in a count of an indictment, upon which count he is acquitted.
Charge defining larceny and that accused must have known that property received was stolen held not prejudicial. It is not harmful or criticizable by defendant, in a trial upon an indictment charging the offenses of receiving stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen, and aiding in the concealment of stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen, by appropriate instruction to define the crime of larceny and instruct the jury that the defendant must have known at the time he received or aided in the concealment of the property, if he did receive or aid in concealing it, that it was stolen property.
Where language not ambiguous verdict in criminal case upheld. All fair intendments will be made to sustain a verdict in a criminal case, and, where the language employed is not so ambiguous as to render its meaning doubtful, the verdict will be upheld.
Judgment reversed for new trial, where ends of justice appear best subserved. Where, because of the inconclusive character of evidence of the crime of which the defendant was convicted it appears that the ends of justice will be best subserved by a new trial, the judgment will be reversed, and a new trial awarded.
Evidence held insufficient to sustain conviction. Evidence examined and found insufficient to sustain the verdict.
Bart A. Riley, of Miami, for plaintiff in error.
Rivers Buford, Atty. Gen., and Marvin C. McIntosh, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
By an information containing three counts, plaintiff in error was charged with (1) larceny of property of the value of more than $50; (2) receiving stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen, of the value of more than $50; and (3) aiding in the concealment of stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen, of the value of more than $50. The property was avocado pears. A motion to quash the information was denied. There was a motion to require the county solicitor to furnish defendant with a bill of particulars. In response to this motion a bill of particulars was filed. The attorney for defendant then requested a bill of particulars 'showing whether any one larceny was of property exceeding in value $50.' This request was denied, to which ruling an exception was reserved. Upon a trial verdict was returned finding defendant guilty on the second and third counts as charged in the information and the value of the property to be more than $50. There was a motion in arrest of judgment which was denied, whereupon defendant was adjudged guilty and sentence of the law was imposed committing him to prison. To review this judgment writ of error was taken.
The first assignment, based upon the court's ruling denying defendant's motion to quash the information, is abandoned.
The second presents the ruling denying the motion in arrest of judgment. The grounds of this motion are that the court erred (1) in denying defendant's motion for bill of particulars; (2) in denying defendant's motion to quash the information; (3) in denying defendant's motion for election, 'after trial' (when the state rested), between the second and third counts of the information. Grounds of this motion indicate that counsel misconceives the function of a motion in arrest of judgment. Its office is to present errors which are apparent upon the record. Jordan v. State, 22 Fla. 528; Caldwell v. State, 43 Fla. 545, 30 So. 814; Harris v. State, 53 Fla. 37, 43 So. 311; Ephriam v. State, 82 Fla. 93, 89 So. 344. The first and third grounds refer to matters in pais presented by other exceptions to rulings of the trial court. The only ground of the motion which presents a question apparent upon the record, and that only in an indirect way, by importing into the motion, by reference, the grounds of the motion to quash, is the second, which alleges error in the ruling denying defendant's motion to quash, and this point, though directly presented by the motion to quash, is expressly abandoned by counsel in the brief filed in this court.
The third assignment is based upon the ruling denying defendant's application for a more complete bill of particulars. The contention made in support of this assignment is fallacious for two reasons. The request is for particulars showing whether any one larceny was of property exceeding the value of $50 in value. The effect of the verdict was to acquit defendant upon the count in the indictment charging larceny. The particulars desired were with respect to this count. No injury therefore resulted even though it should be conceded that the ruling was erroneous. Furthermore, the established rule in this jurisdiction is that the denial of a motion for bill of particulars, made by a defendant in a criminal case, will not be held an abuse of discretion, in the absence of any showing that the bill of particulars was necessary in the proper administration of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Suarez v. State
... ... Whether a bill of particulars should be granted a ... defendant in a criminal case rests very largely in the ... discretion of the trial court, and, as it does not appear ... here that the court abused its discretion, to the injury of ... the defendant, no reversible error appears. Knowles v ... State, 86 Fla. 270, 97 So. 716; Brown v. State, ... 80 Fla. 741, 86 So. 574. We might observe that the grounds ... stated in the motion for bill of particulars were meager, ... vague, and general in character, and not sufficient to bring ... this case within the operation of the ... ...
-
Lowe v. State
... ... So. 323; Nims v. State, 70 Fla. 530, 70 So. 565; ... Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 873, 110 So. 528; Ming ... v. State, 89 Fla. 280, 103 So. 618; Platt v ... State, 65 Fla. 253, 61 So. 502; Townsend v ... State, 95 Fla. 139, 116 So. 7; Coker v. State, ... 83 Fla. 672, 93 So. 176; Knowles v. State, 86 Fla ... 270, 97 So. 716; Davis v. State, 76 Fla. 179, 79 So ... The judgment ... appealed from is reversed and a new trial awarded ... BROWN, THOMAS, and ... ADAMS, JJ., concur ... BUFORD, C. J., and ... TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., dissent ... ...
-
Enriquez v. State
...court conclusion as to the verdict's meaning has not been shown to be erroneous herein and it will be affirmed. See Knowles v. State, 86 Fla. 270, 97 So. 716 (1923). The record in this case demonstrates that all the law enforcement personnel involved did everything they could to protect the......
-
Cordell v. State
... ... 323; ... Nims v. State, 70 Fla. 530, 70 So. 565; Fuller ... v. State, 92 Fla. 873, 110 So. 528; Ming v ... State, 89 Fla. 280, 103 So. 618; Platt v ... State, 65 Fla. 253, 61 So. 502; Townsend v ... State, 95 Fla. 139, 116 So. 7; Coker v. State, ... 83 Fla. 672, 93 So. 176; Knowles v. State, 86 Fla ... 270, 97 So. 716; Davis v. State, 76 Fla. 179, 79 So ... The order ... and judgment of affirmance previously entered is hereby ... vacated, set aside, and held for naught and on this rehearing ... granted the judgment of the lower court appealed from is ... ...