FRANKLIN COOK, 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.
Franklin Cook was convicted of fornication and incest with his daughter Rachel Cook. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction because the State failed to prove venue—it did not establish where, when, or if the alleged crime occurred.
The conviction was improper because the State failed to prove venue—it did not prove in what county, state, month, or year the crime was committed. These material allegations were required to be proven but were not established by the evidence in the record.
“It is sufficient to say that the defendant was not properly convicted upon the evidence as it appears in the record. There was no venue proven.”
The court's core holding that the conviction was defective due to lack of venue proof.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFranklin Cook was indicted in Fall Term 1883 by the Orange County grand jury, charged with committing fornication and incest by having carnal knowledg…
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.
Mr. Justice YasYalkenburgb:
delivered the opinion of the court.
At the Fall Term of the Orange County Circuit Court in the year eighteen hundred and eighty-three, the grand jury found an indictment against Franklin Cook, charging that on the first day of August, 1883, he did, with force and arms, at and in the county of Orange, “ commit the crime of fornication by then and there having carnal knowledge of the body of one Rachel Cook. The said Franklin Cook and the said Rachel Cook, each being then and there single and unmarried, and the said Franklin Cook and the said Rachel Cook not being then and there lawfully married to each other, and the said Franklin Cook and Rachel Cook being then and there within the degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are prohibited and declared by law to be incestuous and void, to wit: the said Franklin Cook being then and there the father of the said Rachel Cook, and the said Rachel Cook being then and there the daughter of the said Franklin Cook.” In May, 1884, the 'cause was tried and the defendant convicted. Counsel for the defendant moved for a new trial, which motion was denied, and they thereupon bring the cause to this court by writ of error. Several alleged errors are assigned.
But one witness, Rachel Cook, was examined upon the part of the State. Two witnesses were examined upon the part of the defence: and the State’s Attorney and the counsel for the defendant have certified that “ all the evidence ” is embodied in the record. [There is, of course, also a bill ot exceptions, signed and sealed by the Circuit Judge.— Reporter.]
It is sufficient to say that the defendant was not properly convicted upon the evidence as it appears in the record. There was no venue proven. It nowhere appears in the proofs in what county or State, or in what month or year the crime was committed, if committed at all. These are material allegations, and should have been proven. 1 Bishop Crim. Prac., §884; Holeman vs. State, 13 Ark., 105; Hoover vs. State, 1 W. Va., 836; Evans vs. State, 17 Fla., 192; Nelson vs. State, 17 Ib., 195.
The judgment is reversed and new trial granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lowman v. State, 80 Fla. 18 (Fla. 1920)…of of venue does not come within the rule above announced, it will be insufficient. Warrace v. State, 27 Fla. 362, 8 South. Rep. 748; McKinnie v. State, 44 Fla. 143, 32 South. Rep. 786; Smith v. State, 42 Fla. 236, 27 South. Rep. 868; Cook v. State, 20 Fla. 802; Robinson v. State, 20 Fla. 804; Evans v. State, 17 Fla. 192; McCoy v. State, 17 Fla. 193. Venue need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence raises a violent presumption that the offense was committed within the county, or if…
-
State v. Theron Black, 385 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1980)…s such, venue has long been held a necessary part of an indictment which must be sustained by affirmative proof at trial. Rimes v. State, supra; McKinnie v. State, 44 Fla. 143, 32 So. 786 (1902); Robinson v. State, 20 Fla. 804 (1884); Cook v. State, 20 Fla. 802 (1884); Evans v. State, 17 Fla. 192 (1879). This well established principle is reflected in rule 3.140(d)(3), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure: Time and Place. Each count of an indictment or information upon which the defendant is to be tried sh…
-
Duncan v. State, 29 Fla. 439 (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 intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Evans v. State, 17 Fla. 192 (Fla. 1879)