State v. Jefferson
| Decision Date | 02 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 60189,60189 |
| Citation | 419 So.2d 330 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Dennis Charles JEFFERSON, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Barbara Ann Butler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for petitioner.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Cathleen Brady, Asst. Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, for respondent.
The petitioner in this case seeks review and reversal of the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Jefferson v. State, 391 So.2d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Conflict is alleged between Jefferson and the cases of Howlett v. State, 260 So.2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) and Perlman v. State, 269 So.2d 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.
Respondent was charged by information with and convicted by a jury of one count of burglary and one count of grand larceny. On appeal to the district court the respondent contended that the trial judge erred by not granting his motion for acquittal. Agreeing with respondent's contention, the district court reversed the trial court and remanded the cause with directions for the trial court to grant a judgment of acquittal.
The information charged that respondent committed the offenses between June 18 and June 21, 1977. Defense counsel requested more specificity in the charge so the state filed an amended statement of particulars specifying that the offense occurred "within five hours either side of 1:00 a. m. on June 21, 1977, in Titusville, Brevard County, Florida."
The proof adduced at trial showed that the store in question was in fact burglarized late one Saturday night and early one Sunday morning between June 19 and June 21, 1977. The trial judge took judicial notice that June 19, 1977 was Sunday, June 20 was Monday and June 21 was Tuesday.
Respondent moved for a judgment of acquittal based on the State's failure to prove that a crime was committed at the time specified in the statement of particulars. The trial judge denied the motion and was reversed by the district court. We are thus presented with the question of whether a bill of particulars specifying an exact date upon which an offense occurred limits the prosecution, if an objection is made, to proof of an offense occurring only on that date, under the particular information. This is a question we resolved indirectly in State v. Beamon, 298 So.2d 376 (Fla.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1124, 95 S.Ct. 809, 42 L.Ed.2d 824 (1975), in which we said that "... the effect of such a specification of date in a bill of particulars is to narrow the Indictment or Information as to the time within which the act or acts allegedly constituting the offense may be proved." 298 So.2d at 379 (Citations omitted.) We qualified our holding in Beamon, however, when we decided the case of Hoffman v. State, 397 So.2d 288 (Fla.1981). The district court in Hoffman held that a statement of particulars can be amended if such amendment will not prejudice the defendant. We felt, as did the district court, that the issue of prejudice to the defendant should be considered.
There is a significant distinction, however, between the facts of Hoffman and those in the instant case. In Hoffman the state moved to amend the statement of particulars,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bettey v. State
...time frame, a conviction on the charge must be reversed." Audano v. State , 674 So.2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (citing State v. Jefferson , 419 So.2d 330, 331–32 (Fla. 1982) ).At trial in March 2013, M.B. testified that she was eight years old and that the abuse started when she was three. Th......
-
Anderson v. State, 87-1835
...because of lack of evidence that the alleged crime occurred within the dates specifically alleged in the information. See State v. Jefferson, 419 So.2d 330 (Fla.1982) and Smith v. State, 434 So.2d 18 (Fla. 5th DCA Charge: D defendant is charged with a sexual offense on V victim at T time an......
-
State v. Presley, 3D01-2973.
...particulars narrows the charges even further and limits the government to proof of the offense as set forth therein. See State v. Jefferson, 419 So.2d 330 (Fla.1982). In the instant case, the specific type of theft alleged in the information and the bill of particulars was theft by false pr......
-
Smith v. State, 82-340
...of particulars. The defense motions for judgment of acquittal as to those two charges should therefore have been granted. State v. Jefferson, 419 So.2d 330 (Fla.1982). Accordingly, we reverse the convictions in those two cases--Nos. 81-896 and AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDE......