Williamson v. State

• Decision Date: 23 January 1945
• Citation: 20 So.2d 482,155 Fla. 477
• Parties: WILLIAMSON v. STATE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

20 So.2d 482

155 Fla. 477

WILLIAMSON v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court

January 23, 1945

Appeal from Circuit Court, Holmes County; E. C. Welch, Judge.

Cecil A Rountree, of Chipley, and E. C. Boswell, of Panama City, for appellant.

J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., and John C. Wynn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

BUFORD, Justice.

Appellant, having been brought on for trial under an indictment charging 'that William Claude Williamson on the 5th day of June 1943, in the County and State aforesaid, while operating a motor vehicle on a public thoroughfare, to - wit: State RoadNo. 39, did unlawfully through the means of such motor vehicle, inflict injury and damage to the person of Delmar Corbitt, and did leave the scene of such accident without stopping his said motor vehicle and rendering all possible assistance to help the said Delmar Corbitt, and without making known to the persons present at the scene of said accident, his full, true and correct name and address,' was found guilty as charged and was adjudged guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of $400 and in default thereof to be confined in county jail for a period of twelve months.

Motion for new trial presenting five grounds, as follows:

'1.The verdict returned against him is contrary to law.

'2.The said verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence.

'3.The indictment on which the defendant was tried charges no offense known to the law of the State of Florida.

'4.Said indictment charges no single offense known to the law of the State of Florida, but said indictment charges two distinct offenses for which different punishments are provided.

'5.The allegation in said indictment that the injury referred to therein was unlawfully inflicted by the defendant as charged in the indictment and the evidence offered in support of said allegation on the trial were and are so prejudicial to defendant as to violate his legal and constitutional rights'.

was filed and denied.Notice of appeal brings for review the record of the proceedings and judgment.

Appellant presents questions to be considered by us as follows:

'1.Is the indictment (transcript page 2) duplicitous?

'2.Does the indictment charge the defendant with two separate offenses viz: 'Hit and run driving' and 'assault and battery'?

'3.Was a substantial right of the defendant jeopardized by the charges in the indictment against the defendant, namely: that he'Did unlawfully through the means of such motor vehicle inflict injury and damage to the person of Delmar Corbitt,' and that he'Did leave the scene of such accident without stopping his said motor vehicle and rendering all possible assistance to help Delmar Corbitt, and without...