Miles v. State
| Decision Date | 01 June 1948 |
| Parties | MILES v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied July 29, 1948.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Bay County; Ira A. Hutchison judge.
J. M & H. P. Sapp, of Panama City, and Joseph S. Ray, of Columbus, Ga., for appellant.
J. Tom Watson, atty. Gen. and Ernest W. Welch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of arson. He contends first that the information is fatally defective because it charges in a single count that the accused 'burned' and 'procured to be burned' the dwelling house in question. Appellant argues that the Legislature, by the use of the disjuntive 'or' in the statute upon the subject, intended to define two or more separate and distinct crimes; that, hence, by the use of the conjuntive 'and' in the information, two crimes inconsistent in character, are charged in a single count, in violation of the rule condemning duplicity.
That position is untenable. The style employed in drafting the information has been approved by this Court. See Billings v. State, 1925, 89 Fla. 309, 103 So. 628; Hamilton v. State, 1939, 129 Fla. 219, 176 So. 89, 112 A.L.R. 1013; Holder v. State, 1939, 136 Fla. 880, 187 So. 781.
Next, appellant argued that there was no proof of the corpus delicti when the trial court permitted 'confessions' to be given in evidence. To establish the corpus delicti, there must be proof of the criminal agency of another as the cause of the occurrence. The corpus delicti may be shown as well by circumstances as by direct evidence. Smith v. State, 1939, 135 Fla. 835, 186 So. 203.
In the case at bar, a large two-story frame dwelling house located in Panama City was damaged by fire at approximately five o'clock in the morning. It had been remodelled to provide several apartments as additional living quarters for shipyard workers and their families. It was insured against loss or damage by fire, one Hodges, as owner, and one Dean, as mortgagee, being the beneficiaries.
Evidence that a burned building is covered by insurance is relevant in a case such as this. See Sawyer v. State, 1931, 100 Fla. 1603, 132 So. 188; Duke v. State, 1938, 134 Fla. 456, 185 So. 422.
The chief of the fire department testified that when he arrived in answer to the fire alarm the house was 'burning from the first floor up and was breaking through the roof'; that the fire ; that he noticed the odor of kerosene on the first floor but not on the second; that after subduing the fire he found on the first floor near the foot of the stairs kerosene in the water which he was able to scoop up with his hands; that there were two oil stoves in apartments on the second floor but the oil tanks were missing; that no kerosene was found in that area; that he saw the accused at the scene of the fire during its progress.
The accused was employed as a domestic servant there and lived upon the premises.
Those facts sufficiently establish the corpus delicti. See Smith v. State, supra.
Next, appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. The trial judge rejected the same contention in the lower court in denying appellant's motion for new trial.
A verdict of a jury may not be disturbed by this Court on the ground that the evidence is insufficient if there is found in the record substantial, competent evidence of all facts essential to conviction. That principle is so well established as to require the citation of no authority in its support.
Evidence is substantial if 'a reasonable mind might accept (it) as adequate to support a conclusion.' Consolidated Edison Co. v. N. L. R. B., 1938, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206; N. L. R. B. v. Columbian Co., 1939, 306 U.S. 292, 300, 59 S.Ct. 501, 505, 83 L.Ed. 660. Applying the 'substantial evidence' rule to the verdict of a jury one finds that the verdict of a jury must stand if the conclusion is one which would have been reached by reasonable men. See 'Review of Findings of Administrators, Judge and Juries: A Comparative Analysis.' 58 Harv.Law Rev. 70 (1944).
In the case at bar the State's witness, C. C. Bivins, testified that following the fire he travelled with Dean by automobile from Columbus, Georgia, to Panama City, and to the burned premises; that upon arrival accused approached the automobile and stated: "Well Mr. Dean, I done what you told me to do, I burned it up. Didn't do as good a job as I intended to do because I got confused about pouring the kerosene and gasoline I had mixed,' and he said whenever he went in the place he was to pour kerosene on one side and set...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moss
...either of two acts constitutes a crime, a count which charges the commission of both acts is not duplicitous. Miles v. State, 1948, 160 Fla. 523, 524--525, 36 So.2d 182, 183; Holder v. State, 1939, 136 Fla. 880, 881--882, 187 So. 781--782; Davis v. State, 1939, 137 Fla. 151, 152--153, 187 S......
-
McQueen v. State, 72--777
...is the fact that a building was burned by the Wilful act of some person criminally responsible for his acts.' Accord: Miles v. State, 160 Fla. 523, 36 So.2d 182 (1948). It is apparent that the requirement of guilty knowledge, wilfullness, or intent, as stated in these cases, would require, ......
-
Youngker v. State
...all essential facts. Evidence is substantial if a reasonable mind might accept it as adequate to support a conclusion. Miles v. State, 1948, 160 Fla. 523, 36 So.2d 182. We will not discuss the question as to whether or not the facts would support a conviction of common law larceny under F.S......
-
Hicks v. Reese, C-C-84-677-P.
...in a single count that the accused burned and, or procured to be burned the building in question is not improper. See Miles v. State, 160 Fla. 523, 36 So.2d 182 (1948). Thus, both the indictment and the instruction were consistent with the statute in that Petitioner could be found guilty if......
-
The anatomy of Florida's corpus delicti doctrine.
...v. State, 704 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 1997) (murder); Wainwright v. State, 704 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 1997) (sexual battery); Miles v. State, 36 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1948) (arson); Franqui v. State, 699 So. 2d 1312, 1317 (Fla. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 1337 (1998) (robbery); Williams v. State, 117 So.......