DAVID ROBINSON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
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.
David Robinson was convicted of arson in Leon County, Florida. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction because the prosecution failed to introduce evidence proving the venue (location) of the crime and the date of its commission, which were material allegations in the indictment.
The conviction must be reversed and a new trial awarded because the prosecution failed to prove the venue and the date of the offense. Material allegations in an indictment must be proven at trial, and evidence of these facts must appear in the bill of exceptions; they cannot be inferred from a judge's certificate alone.
“There is no evidence to prove the venue or the time of the commission of the offence. These are material allegations and should have been proven.”
Establishes that venue and date are material elements of an indictment that must be proven by evidence at trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobinson was indicted in December 1883 for setting fire to and burning a framed gin house, with the offense charged as occurring on October 31, 1883, …
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 Proof Of Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
Mr. Justice VanValkenburgh
delivered the opinion of the" court.
In the month of December, A. D. 1883, at a term of the Circuit Court held in and for Leon county, David Robinson was indicted by the grand jury of that county for setting fire to and burning a “ certain framed gin house,” &c.
The defendant plead not guilty, was duly tried and found guilty.
Counsel for the defendant then made a motion for a new trial, which was denied.
Defendant then brings the ease to this court by writ of error. The motion for a new trial should have been granted. The evidence is here in a bill of exceptions. The indictment charges the offence to have been committed on the 31st day of October, A. D. 1883, in the county of Leon, State of Florida. There is no evidence to prove the venue or the time of the commission of the offence. These are material allegations and should have been proven. The statutes of this State provide that “ all offences not punishable'with death shall be prosecute! within two years next after the same shall have been committed.” Thomp. Dig., 490. We have had occasion to announce this rule several times. Evans vs. The State, 17 Fla., 192; McCoy vs. The State, Ib., 193; Nelson vs. The State, Ib., 195; Cook vs. The State, 20 Fla., supra.
The Judge certifies in the bill of exceptions that “ the venue was proven by one of the witnesses, Dorse. In my notes of the testimony, I made a memorandum to that effect, and do not think I am mistaken, though counsel for the accused differs from me.” The evidence of the venue is not in the bill óf exceptions. What was the venue as proven? or what was the venue the Judge thinks was proven? Did it correspond to that laid in the indictment, or did it not ? If there was such evidence it should appear in the bill of exceptions, and the fact that it was given and corresponds to the allegations in the indictment cannot he inferred from such a certificate as that given above.
So far as the evidence is concerned, the offence might have been committed in any other county of this, of any other State, or at any time, before or since the adoption of our State Constitution.
Judgment reversed aud new trial awai’ded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lowman v. State, 80 Fla. 18 (Fla. 1920)…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 the evidence refers to localiti…
-
State v. Theron Black, 385 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1980)…charge. Art. I, § 16, Fla. Const. As 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 wh…
-
Warrace v. State, 27 Fla. 362 (Fla. 1891)
Previewing 3 of 7 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)