Mckinnie v. State
| Decision Date | 04 March 1902 |
| Citation | 44 Fla. 143,32 So. 786 |
| Parties | McKINNIE et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, Washington county; Evelyn C. Maxwell Judge.
John W McKinnie and Susan Strickland were convicted of crime, and bring error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. It is necessary for an indictment to state the county within which the offense was committed, and the proof must affirmatively sustain such allegation. Such venue need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. But if the evidence raises a violent presumption that the offense was committed within the county charged, or if the evidence refers to locations and landmarks at or near the scene of the alleged offense, known or probably familiar to the jury, from which they may reasonably have inferred that the offense was committed in the county charged, it will be sufficient. But where the evidence wholly fails to show in what county or state the crime was committed, a judgment of conviction will be reversed.
COUNSEL Benj. S. Liddon, for plaintiffs in error.
William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiffs in error were indicted, tried, and convicted at the spring term, 1901, of the circuit court for Washington county of the crime of living together in an open state of adultery, and from the sentences imposed seek relief on writ of error returnable to the present term of this court.
The only error assigned is the denial of the defendants' motion for new trial. This motion was based upon the following grounds: (1) That the verdict is unsupported by the evidence; (2) that the verdict is contrary to the evidence (3) that the verdict is contrary to the charge of the court (4) that the verdict is contrary to the law. The first contention under this assignment is that the state failed to prove the venue of the crime. In the case of Cook v State, 20 Fla. 802, it is held that it is necessary for an indictment to state the county within which the offense was committed, and the proof must affirmatively sustain such allegation, and that in such a case a new trial will be granted when all the evidence taken in the court below fails to establish the venue as laid in the indictment. In Warrace v. State, 27 Fla. 362, 8 So. 748, it is held that venue need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence raises a violent presumption that the offense was committed within the county,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowman v. State
... ... State, 21 Fla. 598; Bryan v. State, 19 Fla ... 864; Hopkins v. State, 52 Fla. 39, 42 So. 52; 16 ... C.J. 769 ... If the ... proof of venue does not come within the rule above announced, ... it will be insufficient. Warrace v. State, 27 Fla ... 362, 8 So. 748; McKinnie v. State, 44 Fla. 143, 32 ... So. 786; Smith v. State, 42 Fla. 236, 27 So. 868; ... Cook v. State, 20 Fla. 802; Robinson v ... State, 20 Fla. 804; Evans v. State, 17 Fla ... 192; McCoy v. State, 17 Fla. 193 ... Venue ... need not be established beyond a reasonable ... ...
-
Tucker v. State
...the trial was held, the conviction clearly could not stand. Woodward v. Petteway, 123 Fla. 892, 168 So. 806 (1935); McKinnie v. State, 44 Fla. 143, 32 So. 786 (1902). Nonetheless, the Florida constitution does not mandate an allegation of venue in an Any requirement that venue be alleged in......
-
State v. Stephens
...a different county than the one charged, the conviction must be reversed. Mounier v. State, 178 So.2d 714 (Fla.1965); McKinnie v. State, 44 Fla. 143, 32 So. 786 (1902); State v. Katz, 417 So.2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), rev. denied, 429 So.2d 6 An exception to the strict venue rule is provide......
-
State v. Black
...held a necessary part of an indictment which must be sustained by affirmative proof at trial. Rimes v. State, supra; McKinnie v. State, 44 Fla. 143, 32 So. 786 (1902); Robinson v. State, 20 Fla. 804 (1884); Cook v. State, 20 Fla. 802 (1884); Evans v. State, 17 Fla. 192 (1879). This well est......