Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 13 October 1904
• Citation: Williams v. State, 48 Fla. 65, 37 So. 521 (Fla. 1904)
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. STATE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

37 So. 521

48 Fla. 65

WILLIAMS v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

October 13, 1904

Error to Circuit Court, Santa Rosa County; Lucius J. Reeves, Judge.

Will Williams, alias Bill Bailey, was convicted of burglary, and brings error. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. Confessions freely and voluntarily made are admissible in evidence, even though made to an officer having the party under arrest.

2. There is no error in refusing an instruction, where the court has already given the substance of the requested instruction in the general charge.

3. Under an indictment charging the defendant with breaking and entering a building with intent to steal certain goods and chattels situated therein, the defendant may be convicted upon proof of those facts, even though no such goods and chattels were actually stolen. An instruction in such a case which requires the jury to find that goods and chattels were actually taken or stolen is properly refused.

4. Evidence examined, and found sufficient to support the verdict.

COUNSEL A. G. Campbell, for plaintiff in error.

William H. Ellis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

CARTER P.J.

In September, 1903, plaintiff in error was tried and convicted in the circuit court of Santa Rosa county upon an indictment presented against him at a former term, charging the crime of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a misdemeanor, and from the sentence imposed this writ of error was taken.

One of the state witnesses, W. W. Harrison, testified that he, being at the time a deputy sheriff, arrested the defendant upon the charge made against him; that the defendant made certain statements to him at that time; that they were voluntarily made, without any inducements being offered or any threats made. The witness was permitted to testify to such statements over defendant's objection that they were inadmissible because made while under arrest.

It has been repeatedly held by this court that confessions or statements made by one to an officer having him under arrest are admissible if freely and voluntarily made; and, as the defendants' statements in this case were proven to be of that nature, there was no error in admitting them. The first assignment of error, which is based upon the ruling mentioned, must therefore be overruled. Green v State, 40 Fla. 191, 23 So. 851; McNish v. State (Fla.) 36 So. 176.

The second assignment of error is based upon the court's refusal to give a certain instruction relating to the presumption which might be drawn from the possession of property stolen by means of a recent breaking and entry. So far as the requested instruction asserted correct propositions of law applicable to the evidence, it was covered by the...