Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 17 August 1926 |
| Citation | 109 So. 805,92 Fla. 648 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Taylor County; Hal W. Adams, Judge.
J. H Williams was convicted of the willful and malicious destruction and injury of property of another, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Test of sufficiency of indictment is whether it is so vague inconsistent, and indefinite as to mislead accused and embarrass him in preparing defense or expose him to substantial danger of new prosecution; indictment for malicious damage to automobile belonging to another held sufficient (Rev. Gen. St. 1920,§ 5305). The test of the sufficiency of an indictment under our law is whether or not it is so vague, inconsistent, and indefinite as to mislead the accused and embarrass him in the preparation of his defense or expose him after conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense.
That record in misdemeanor case is silent as to arraignment or plea not ground for reversal, when matter was not presented to trial court or called to Supreme Court's attention except by counsel's brief. Where the record of a trial for a misdemeanor is silent as to an arraignment or plea of the defendant, and the matter was never presented to the trial court, and not assigned as error and not called to the attention of the Supreme Court, except by brief of counsel the suggested omission, if there was an omission, cannot of itself be ground for reversal of a judgment otherwise in accordance with law.
Davis & Pepper, of Perry, for plaintiff in error.
J. B. Johnson, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error, hereinafter designated as the defendant, was convicted of a misdemeanor on indictment charging the willful and malicious destruction and injury to personal property of another under the provisions of section 5305 of the Revised General Statutes of Florida 1920.
The first assignment of error attacks the sufficiency in the indictment of the allegation of ownership of the property. The indictment alleges, in part, that the defendant did injure 'the personal property of another, to wit, a Ford automobile, personal property of O. S. McIntyre and then and there in the possession of one S. B. Morris under and by virtue of a written conditional sale contract.' The gist of the offense under the statute is the willful and malicious destruction or injury to personal property of another.
We believe the indictment fully apprises the defendant of the ownership and also possession of the personal property, and that it is not so vague, inconsistent, or indefinite as to mislead the accused and embarrass him in the preparation of defense or expose him after conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of new prosecution for the same offense. Lamb v. State (Fla.) 107 So. 530.
The evidence in this case, as presented by the state's witnesses, discloses that defendant, together with several of his negro employees, came along the road in his car. The Ford car described in the indictment was parked along the road in such manner that other cars could have passed and did pass around it. For some reason best known to the defendant he stopped his car, and, together with the assistance of two or three of his employees overturned the Ford car described in the indictment into a ditch along side of the road, and in that manner caused the injury as alleged. The defendant denied turning the car over, while he admitted driving along that road with his employees at about the same time.
The jury has passed upon the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence, and the verdict of the jury has received the sanction of the trial court. It appears that there is substantial, competent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Edwards
...that the word 'wilful' means 'intentional', that is, 'on purpose'. See Mitchell v. Mitchell, 91 Fla. 427, 107 So. 630; Williams v. State, 92 Fla. 648, 109 So. 805; Love v. State, 107 Fla. 376, 144 So. 843. In case last cited it was held that 'wilfully' setting fire to or burning would be su......
-
Martinez v. State, 51778
...for the same offense." Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.140(O ). 3 See also, Brown v. State, 135 Fla. 30, 184 So. 518 (1938); Williams v. State, 92 Fla. 648, 109 So. 805 (1926); and Machin v. State, 270 So.2d 464 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). Generally, an information is sufficient if it follows the language of the st......
-
Robinson v. State, 95-2104
...or recklessly and without justification or excuse. See Parker v. State, 124 Fla. 780, 169 So. 411 (Fla.1936); Williams v. State, 92 Fla. 648, 109 So. 805 (Fla.1926) (in construing statute prohibiting willful and malicious injury of the property of another, court opined that "willful" simply......
-
State v. Law, VV-241
...prosecution for the same offense.' Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.140(o). See also, Brown v. State, 135 Fla. 30, 184 So. 518 (1938); Williams v. State, 92 Fla. 648, 109 So. 805 (1926); and Machin v. State, 270 So.2d 464 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). Generally, an information is sufficient if it follows the language ......