Renfroe v. State

• Decision Date: 26 October 1918
• Citation: 76 Fla. 392,80 So. 183
• Parties: RENFROE v. STATE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

80 So. 183

76 Fla. 392

RENFROE v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court

October 26, 1918

Error to Circuit Court, Santa Rosa County; A. G. Campbell, Judge.

Daniel Renfroe was convicted of killing sheep, and brings error. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

A verdict must be responsive to the charge, and consistent, and find everything that is necessary to enable the court to render judgment.

Under an indictment for 'unlawfully, willfully, and maliciously killing one ewe sheep,' a verdict of 'guilty of killing one ewe sheep' is bad, as not responsive to the indictment.

COUNSEL H. S. Laird, of Pensacola, for plaintiff in error.

Van C Swearingen, Atty. Gen., and Worth W. Trammell, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.

OPINION

BROWNE C.J.

Two indictments were found in Santa Rosa county against the plaintiff in error, Daniel Renfroe, for unlawfully willfully, and maliciously killing one ewe sheep. In one indictment the ownership of the sheep was laid in George Allen, and in the other in Leslie Allen, Tom Allen, Leon Allen, and Ray Allen. By agreement of counsel the two cases were merged into one trial and the following verdicts rendered:

'Indictment No. 1. We the jury find the defendant guilty of killing one ewe sheep belonging to George Allen of the first indictment. J. H. Tomkins, foreman.'

'Indictment No. 2. We the jury find the defendant not guilty of killing Leslie Allen, Tom Allen, Leon Allen, Ray Allens ewe sheep. [Sign] J. H. Tomkins, Foreman for No. 1, 2.'

It is contended that the verdict which found the defendant guilty described no offense known to the laws of Florida, and that it was not responsive to the indictment. Had the verdict found the defendant 'guilty' or 'guilty as charged in the indictment,' it would have been sufficient. Instead of this, the jury set out the offense of which they found the defendant guilty, to wit, 'killing one ewe sheep belonging to George Allen of the first indictment.' This fails to state any offense known to the laws of Florida, and the verdict is a nullity. The defendant was charged with 'willfully and maliciously' killing a beast belonging to another person, and without the essential element of willfulness and malice the killing constituted no offense. The jury merely found that the defendant killed a sheep belonging to another, which without other circumstances is not an offense known to our law.

The principle upon which this decision rests was enunciated and settled in the cases of Harris v. State, 53 Fla. 37, 43 So. 311, and O'Neal v. State, 54 Fla. 96, 44 So. 940.

In the Harris Case the defendant was prosecuted under an information charging him with 'receiving stolen goods knowing the same to have been stolen.' The verdict was 'We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of receiving stolen goods, so say we all,' and this court held that the verdict was not responsive to the charge and was not consistent therewith, and failed to find everything that is necessary to enable the court to render judgment, and further said:

'The jury attempted to find him guilty on the second count. The second count charged the defendant with the crime of buying, receiving,...