O'neal v. State
| Decision Date | 29 October 1907 |
| Citation | 54 Fla. 96,44 So. 940 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | O'NEAL v. STATE. |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Duval County; John S. Maxwell Judge.
George O'Neal was convicted of receiving stolen goods, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Verdicts in criminal cases should be certain and import a definite meaning free from ambiguity; but any words that convey beyond a reasonable doubt the meaning and intention of the jury are sufficient, and all fair intendments should be made to sustain them. If the intention of the jury is clearly manifested in the language used, mere inaccuracies of expression will not vitiate the verdict.
In a criminal case, the verdict should be construed with reference to the indictment or information and the entire record, and if when so construed it is definite and clearly expresses the manifest intention of the jury and is otherwise legal, mere inaccuracies of expression will not render the verdict void.
Where an information in separate counts charges two distinct and separate but similar and kindred felonies, such as grand larceny in one count and receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen in the other count, there can be a verdict convicting the defendant on both counts. In such a case the court may legally impose separate sentences for each offense.
In a prosecution for receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen, a verdict finding the defendant guilty of 'receiving stolen goods' is not responsive to the charge made against the defendant, and is insufficient to support a judgment and sentence.
Where O. and A. areprosecuted under an information charging them with grand larceny in one count and with receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen in another count, a verdict, that finds 'the defendants guilty, O. grand larceny and receiving stolen goods, and A. receiving stolen goods,' construed with reference to the information, is a sufficient finding that O. is guilty of grand larceny, but is insufficient as a finding of guilty of receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen as to O. or A.
COUNSEL L. E. Wade, for plaintiff in error.
W. H Ellis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
An information was duly presented in the criminal court of record for Duval county charging Obie Wilson, Alonzo Small George O'Neal, and Collins Austin with grand larceny in one count and with receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen in the second count. George O'Neal and Collins Austin, having pleaded not guilty, were tried, and the jury rendered the following verdict: 'We, the jury, find the defendants guilty, George O'Neal grand larceny and receiving stolen goods and Collins Austin receiving stolen goods.'
A motion in arrest of judgment on the grounds that (1) no legal judgment or sentence can be rendered upon the information, verdict, and record; (2) the information does not legally charge defendants with the crime of grand larceny and receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen. The motion was granted as to Collins Austin and denied as to George O'Neal, who was sentenced to the county jail for three months.
On writ of error George O'Neal assigns and argues as errors that legal judgment cannot be entered on the verdict, and that the verdict is vague, indefinite, and uncertain.
Verdicts in criminal cases should be certain and import a definite meaning free from ambiguity; but any words that convey beyond a reasonable doubt the meaning and intention of the jury are sufficient, and all fair intendments should be made to sustain them. If the intention of the jury is clearly manifested in the language used, mere inaccuracies of expression will not vitiate the verdict. Johnson v. State, 51 Fla. 44, 40 So. 678; Long v. State, 42 Fla. 612, 28 So. 855; Albritton v. State, 54 Fla. ----, 44 So. 745.
In a criminal case the verdict should be construed with reference to the indictment or information and the entire record, and if when so construed it is definite and clearly expresses the manifest intention of the jury and is otherwise legal, mere inaccuracies of expression will not render the verdict void. See Ewert v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vogel v. State
...114 So. 237. Any words that convey beyond a reasonable doubt the jury's meaning are sufficient. See Licata v. State, supra; O'Neal v. State, 54 Fla. 96, 44 So. 940; Niblack v. State, 70 Fla. 227, 70 So. Higginbotham v. State, 42 Fla. 573, 29 so. 410, 89 Am.St.Rep. 237; Long v. State, supra;......
-
Thomas v. State
...of law.' See Higginbotham v. State, 42 Fla. 573, 29 So. 410, 89 Am. St. Rep. 237; Long v. State, 42 Fla. 612, 28 So. 855; O'Neal v. State, 54 Fla. 96, 44 So. 940; Edwards v. State, 54 Fla. 40, 45 So. Williams v. State, 45 Fla. 128, 34 So. 279; Freeman v. State, 50 Fla. 38, 39 So. 785. The e......
-
Blackwell v. State
...of the record. See also Licata v. State, 81 Fla. 649, 88 So. 621; Morris v. State, 54 Fla. 80, 45 So. 456, 14 Ann. Cas. 285; O'Neal v. State, 54 Fla. 96, 44 So. 940. We carefully examined the evidence in the case with respect to the assignment directed to its sufficiency to support the verd......
-
Blackshare v. State
...Minn. 217; 61 S.W. 1072. A verdict finding defendant guilty of receiving stolen property is insufficient to support a judgment or sentence. 44 So. 940; 54 Fla. 96; 43 So. 311; Ga. 191; 38 La.Ann. 357; 67 P. 42; 135 Cal. 61. It is necessary to show that the intent to steal existed at the tim......