Weathers v. State
| Decision Date | 29 January 1952 |
| Citation | 56 So.2d 536 |
| Parties | WEATHERS v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
P. Donald DeHoff, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Leonard Pepper, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
An information was filed in the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County charging Walter W. Ziegler, alias Dr. W. W. Winnenger, alias William W. Wininger, with performing an abortion upon a certain woman and charging the appellant with having 'before said felony * * * was committed,' counseled, hired, moved, encouraged, commanded, and incited, and in other ways procured the codefendant to transgress the law. We have italicized the quotation because of the relevancy of the phrase to the appellant's first question.
In substance he asks whether the information charged him with having been an accessory before the fact or a principal in the second degree. The state concedes that he was described as an accessory, and we readily agree. Of course, the main distinction between the two is the absence or presence of the accused at the time the offense was perpetrated.
We would not further pursue this aspect of the appeal but for appellant's apparent apprehension that he was eventually adjudged guilty as a principal, a position he was not alleged to have assumed.
The record does not support the position. Ziegler-Winninger, as the state chooses to call him, pleaded guilty and was adjudged so before the appellant was convicted. The jury returned a verdict of guilty 'as charged.' The information, the evidence relevant to it, and the verdict all harmonize on the appellant's status as an accessory.
The court's charge to the jury both from a standpoint of substance and procedure affords no substantiation of appellant's position on the first point. The court concretely defined the elements of the offense charged to appellant, that is, they should convict him if they believed beyond a reasonable doubt Ziegler-Winninger performed the abortion and appellant beforehand encouraged the criminal transaction.
True, the judge charged the jury in the abstract on the subject of principals, but this did not neutralize what he had said of the particular circumstances of this case, and, in fine, even had there been error it was not preserved for consideration here, because the judge inquired at the conclusion of his charges whether there was objection to them on the part of the defendant, and his counsel categorically replied, 'No, sir.'
Without exploring the rule on the proof of a crime of high degree being sufficient to support conviction of a crime of lesser degree where the elements of the latter are included in the former, and without further discussion of principals and accessories, we pass to the next question with confidence that no error has so far been demonstrated.
The appellant feels aggrieved because the judge rejected a requested charge or the value of an accomplice's testimony and gave one of his own. We have compared them, and we conclude that the one by which the jury was guided does not suffer by the comparison. The inherent weakness of such testimony was drawn to the jury's attention, and that body was admonished to receive it and to weigh it with great caution. No disadvantage redounded to appellant on that score.
Next the appellant complains about questions asked witnesses and statements made to the jury by the prosecutor that inflamed the minds of the jurors and prejudiced the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Clarke
...... means that the defendant had been formally adjudged to be guilty by the county judge's court of Marion County.”); Weathers v. State, 56 So.2d 536, 538 (Fla.1952) (holding that “conviction” occurs when the jury returns a verdict of guilty and the judge “clinches the finding” by adjudicat......
-
State of La. v. Dedrick JerMe. JONES
...Delta Truck Brokers, Inc. v. King, 142 So.2d 273 (Fla.1962) (construing § 323.31(3)(a) 2, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1960)); Weathers v. State, 56 So.2d 536 (Fla.1952) (construing § 776.02, Fla. Stat. (1949)); State v. Smith, 160 Fla. 288, 34 So.2d 533 (1948) (construing § 775.09, Fla. Stat. (1941))......
-
State Of La. v. Dedrick Jerme. Jones
...Delta Truck Brokers, Inc. v. King, 142 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1962) (construing § 323.31(3)(a) 2, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1960)); Weathers v. State, 56 So.2d 536 (Fla.1952) (construing § 776.02, Fla. Stat. (1949)); State v. Smith, 160 Fla. 288, 34 So.2d 533 (1948) (construing § 775.09, Fla. Stat. (1941))......
-
Clarke v. United States, SC15–506.
...... means that the defendant had been formally adjudged to be guilty by the county judge's court of Marion County."); Weathers v. State, 56 So.2d 536, 538 (Fla.1952) (holding that "conviction" occurs when the jury returns a verdict of guilty and the judge "clinches the finding" by adjudicat......