KING CURRY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
King Curry was indicted in Orange County for altering animal brands and larceny, but was tried and convicted in Brevard County without proper authorization or record showing the judge's determination that trial in the original county was impracticable. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction due to lack of jurisdiction.
The court reversed the conviction because the record does not show that the circuit judge made or recorded a determination that it was impracticable or inexpedient to form a grand jury in Orange County, which was required by law before a grand jury in another county could indict for offences committed in Orange County. Without such a determination, Brevard County lacked jurisdiction to try the defendant.
“whenever it shall be, in the opinion of the judge, impracticable, or inexpedient to form a grand jury in any county, for the want of a sufficient number of qualified jurors therein, or on account of undue excitement or prejudice among the people, it shall be lawful for the grand jury in any county in the same circuit to indict any person for any offence committed in the county first mentioned in this section, and the trial thereof shall proceed in the county where such indictment may be found, subject to a change of the place of trial according to law”
Establishes the statutory authorization for cross-county indictment and trial, requiring judicial determination of impracticability or inexpediency
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKing Curry and Thomas Thompson were indicted in Orange County in 1873 for fraudulently altering marks and brands of animals belonging to Streete Parke…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Indictment cases and more on FLexlaw
delivered the opinion of the court.
The record in this case contains two separate and distinct indictments found against King Curry and Thomas Thompson, at the Orange county special term, A. D., 1873. One of these indictments is for fraudulently altering the marks and brands of certain animals, the property of one Streete Parker, and contains also a count for larceny; tlio other is for a like offence in changing marks and brands of animals, the property of John Parker, and also contains a count for larceny. The indictments commence alike, and in the following manner:
“Orange county, to-wit: The grand jurors of the State of Florida, empanelled and sworn to inquire and true presentment make in and for the body of the counties of Orange and Brevard, in the State aforesaid, upon their oaths,” &c. They appear to have both been filed at the same time, October 31, 1873. The record then shows that on the first of March,-1878, the case came on for trial in Brevard county. That on'motion of the State Attorney, “it was ordered that there be a severance in the trials of the defendants in the case of The State of Florida vs. King Curry, Thomas Thompson.” It was also on like motion “ordered that a nolle posequi enter on the count in the indictment charging larceny as against King Curry.” Curry was then arraigned, plead not guilty, was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to five years in the penitentiary. There is no- bill of exceptions in the case and none of the evidence produced in the court below is before us. It does not appear in any way that the place of trial was ever changed from the county of Orange to the county of Brevard, nor is there any evidence embodied in the record to enable this court to determine upon which of the two indictments the plaintiff in error was tried and convicted.
Chapter 1637, laws of 1868, sub-chapter 13, §14, provides that “whenever it shall be, in the opinion of the judge, impracticable, or inexpedient to form a grand jury in any county, for the want of a sufficient number of qualified juTors therein, or on account of undue excitement ot prejudice among the people, it shall be lawful for the grand jury in any county in the same circuit to indict any person for any offence committed in the county first mentioned in this section, and the trial thereof shall proceed in the county where such indictment may be found, subject to a change of the place of trial according to law ”
It does not appear that the judge? of that judicial circuit was of the opinion that it was impracticable or inexpedient for any of the reasons mentioned to form a grand jury in *178the count}' of Brevard, where the defendant lived, and where the offences are alleged to have been committed. If lie was of such opinion, it should have been embodied in an order and made part of the record.
Prom the record before us we cannot see that the court in Brevard county had jurisdiction to try this defendant, and the judgment for this reason must be reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deeb v. State, 131 Fla. 362 (Fla. 1937)…ging the venue was not “improper and illegal” because it was not supported by the proofs of facts alleged as required by the statute authorizing a change of venue, as was the case in Greeno v. Wilson, 27 Fla. 492, 8 So. 723. See also Curry v. State, 17 Fla. 683; Turner v. State, 87 Fla. 155, 99 So. 334. A change of venue in a criminal prosceution at the instance of the defendant who is in open court and represented by counsel, is for the defendant’s benefit as well as to have a proper administration of ju…
-
Higginbotham v. State, 88 Fla. 26 (Fla. 1924)…nowledge of conditions in Dixie County, to warrant him making the order in which he declared that it was “impracticable and inexpedient to form a grand jury to investigate this cause,” he was warranted under the statute to do so. In Curry v. State, 17 Fla. 683, a similar statute, that differed slightly in phraseology from Section 6102 of Revised General Statutes, now under consideration, was passed upon by this Court. [*29] The former statute, which was Chapter 1637, Laws of ,1868, provided that “whenever…
-
Thompson v. State, 52 Fla. 113 (Fla. 1906)…laced upon the one copied last therein, but upon a suggestion from this court to the Clerk of Marion County, this uncertainty has been cleared away by a proper certificate from said clerk. The difficulties encountered by the court in Curry v. State, 17 Fla. 683, are not present [*117] here and the decision there is in nowise affected or modified by what Ate now say. II. Next, as to the drawing of the jury. We may say here parenthetically that a plea in abatement based upon the drawing of the grand jury wa…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence