Long v. State

• Decision Date: 25 July 1900
• Citation: 28 So. 855,42 Fla. 612
• Parties: LONG v. STATE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

28 So. 855

42 Fla. 612

LONG v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court

July 25, 1900

Error to circuit court, Jackson county; Evelyn C. Maxwell, Judge.

Charley Long was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, and brings error. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. Verdicts should be certain, and import a definite meaning but any words that convey beyond reasonable doubt the meaning and intention of the jury will be sufficient, though the spelling may be bad.

2. A new trial should not be granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence that goes merely to impeach the character of witnesses, or that is simply cumulative.

3. The evidence in this case held to be sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury.

COUNSEL M. D. Price, for plaintiff in error.

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

OPINION

MABRY J.

Plaintiff in error was indicted in May, 1891, for assault with a deadly weapon with intent from a premeditated design to effect the death of one Judge Holden, and upon a trial on the indictment in November, 1899, was convicted. From the sentence of the court a writ of error has been sued out to the present term of this court.

The verdict of the jury, as shown by the proper record entry reads as follows: 'We, the jury, find the defendant guitly as charged. J. S. Milvin, Foreman.' A motion in arrest of judgment was overruled, and the ground of error assigned thereon is that the verdict is vague, indefinite uncertain, and insufficient to support the sentence of the court. The argument is that the words 'defendant' and 'guitly' found in the verdict rendered it vague indefinite, and uncertain.

Verdicts in criminal cases should be certain, and import a definite meaning, free from ambiguity. Bryant v. State, 34 Fla. 291, 16 So. 177. 'Any words which convey, beyond reasonable doubt, the meaning and intention of the jury, are sufficient; and all fair intendments will be made to support the verdict.' Kellum v. State, 64 Miss. 226, 1 So. 174. If the intention is clearly manifested, bad spelling or faulty grammar will not vitiate the verdict. State v. McNamara, 100 Mo. 100, 13 S.W. 938; State v. Wilson, 40 La. Ann. 751, 5 So. 52; Snyder v. U. S., 112 U.S. 216, 5 S.Ct. 118, 28 L.Ed. 697. We are of the opinion that the verdict rendered in this case originating under statute prior to the adoption of the Revised Statutes is sufficient to authorize the sentence of the court.

The second error assigned is that the court erred in not granting a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. Holden, the party on whom the assault was made testified that he walked out of a church one night onto a platform in front, and recognized the defendant, who shot him with a pistol, the ball taking effect in the side of his face. On cross-examination he was asked if he did not then and subsequently state that he did not know who shot him, and replied that he had not so stated. The state also proved by another witness that, immediately after being shot, Holden returned to the church, with his hand on his face, and stated that the defendant shot him. Defendant proved by a witness that Holden then stated that he did not know who shot him. The alleged newly-discovered evidence relates to statements of Holden made after being shot, heard by other witnesses, that he did not know who shot him. One of the witnesses to establish the alleged newly-discovered evidence, and who was summoned as a witness for defendant, wrote a letter to counsel of defendant the day after the trial, as follows: 'Upon reflection, I think I did your client, Long, an...