STATE OF FLORIDA, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
DENNIS BURNS, 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.
This case addresses whether the State can use a writ of error to appeal a lower court's decision to quash an indictment against a defendant. The court held that the State cannot pursue such an appeal, as the writ of error in criminal cases is intended for the defendant only after conviction.
No, the State does not have the right to bring a writ of error in a criminal case to challenge a judgment in favor of the accused. The writ of error is contemplated for the defendant only, and typically after a conviction.
“The statutes of this State make provision for the writ of error in criminal cases, but in every act of legislation on the subject it is clearly contemplated that the defendant only is entitled to the writ, and only after conviction.”
Establishes the general understanding of who can use a writ of error in criminal cases.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant, Dennis Burns, was indicted, but the lower court granted his motion to quash the indictment. The State then sought to appeal this decisi…
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.
delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant in error, Dennis Burns, was indicted, and upon his motion the indictment was quashed.
The State thereupon seeks to bring the cause before this court by writ of error, and defendant in error moves to quash the writ and dismiss the case upon the ground that a writ of error will not lie at the instance of the State in a criminal cause.
The statutes of this State make provision for the writ of error in criminal cases, but in every act of legislation on the subject it is clearly contemplated that the defendant only is entitled to the writ, and only after conviction.
In New York there were several instances, prior to 1848, in which writs of error were prosecuted by the law officer of the State, but in none of the cases reported was the question made or considered by the court whether the people could properly review or reverse a judgment in favor of an accused person. In The People vs. Corning, however, (2 Comst., 9,) in a thorough examination of the question, the Court of Appeals held that the people could not prosecute the writ. In 1862 the Legislature of that State authorized it in cases where judgment in favor of the accused was given upon an indictment, except where there had been an acquittal by a jury, and in Arkansas the State is expressly authorized to bring error. (1 Pike, 428.) It was also held in Maryland that the State might bring error. (5 *187Har. and John., 317.) In all other States the right of the State to the writ is denied.
The weight of authority is overwhelming, not only in this country but in England, that the writ will not lie at . the instance of the State, and it is evident from the character of the legislation on the subject in this State that it has never been contemplated that the State could further pursue parties who had obtained judgment in their favor in prosecutions by indictment, whether by the judgment of the court or verdict of a jury.
The writ of error is dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1988)…granting the judgment of acquittal. We reviewed the history of the authority of the state to seek review of trial court criminal decisions, stating that at common law a writ of error would lie for the defendant but not for the state. State v. Burns, 18 Fla. 185 (1881). We recognized that the issue was solely a question of law and that double jeopardy was not applicable. We held, however, “that the state’s right of appeal in criminal cases depends on statutory authorization and is governed strictly by the s…
-
State v. Chapman Levi Creighton, 469 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1985)…ect in this State that it has never been contemplated that the State could further pursue parties who had obtained judgment in their favor in prosecutions by indictment, whether by the judgment of the court or the verdict of a jury. State v. Burns, 18 Fla. 185, 187 (1891). In view of this virtual prohibition of the common law, we can see sections 924.07 and 924.071 as strictly limited and carefully crafted exceptions designed to provide appellate review to the state in criminal cases where such is needed…
-
Lovett v. State, 29 Fla. 384 (Fla. 1892)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence