MACK BOWEN, 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.
Mack Bowen was convicted as an accessory before the fact to murder, but the principal defendant (Bracey) was subsequently acquitted. The Florida Supreme Court reversed Bowen's conviction, holding that under common law, conviction of the principal is essential to the guilt of an accessory.
The conviction of the principal is essential to the guilt of an accessory at common law. Because Bracey was acquitted, Bowen could not be guilty as an accessory, and his conviction must be reversed.
“The conviction of the principal, Bracey, was essential to the guilt of the plaintiff in error as accessory at common law.”
Establishes the core legal principle that conviction of the principal is a prerequisite to accessory liability under common law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBowen was indicted for murder along with Bracey and Rogers, charged in various capacities as principal and accessories. After severance was granted, B…
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 Accessory Before The Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
Raney, C. J.:
The indictment charges Mack Bowen, the plaintiff in error, with the murder of one Horace Stalvey and Richard Rogers and Henry Braeey as accessories before the fact to such murder; it then charges Brace}7 with the murder and Bowen and Rodgers as accessories thereto before the fact and then charges Rogers with the murder and Braeey and Bowen as accessories thereto.
A severance was granted at the request of the defendant. The trial of Bowen was entered upon, and on the 20th day of last December, the jury returned a verdict finding him guilty of “ being an accessory to murder, as charged in the second count,” or in effect, that he was guilty as an accessory to Bracey as the murderer of Stalvey.
On the 22d day of December Bowen moved for a new trial on the usual grounds, and the motion was denied ; and on the 28th day of the month lie entered a motion in arrest of judgment on the ground that he had been placed on trial before the other defendants, and found guilty in the manner and form as stated above ; and afterwards, on the 26th day of the same, month, Bracey had been put on trial, and the jury had returned a verdict of not guilty; and that after-wards the Judge, at the request of the State Attorney, entered .a nolle prosequi as to Rogers.
This motion was overruled. On the same day the court sentenced Bowen to be hanged. The sentence recites that he had been convicted of being accessory before the fact (by counseling, hiring, procuring and aiding) to murder in the first degree.
The case is now before us on a writ of error and with a bill -of exceptions. The law governing this case as to the trial and conviction of accessories before the fact is set out in Ex-parte Mack Bowen, decided by ns at the last term, 25 Fla., S. C., 6 So. Rep., 65. The charge in the indictment of being an accessory, is of that offence as at common law, and not of a substantive felony under our statute. The conviction of the principal, Bracey, was essential to the guilt of the plaintiff in error as accessory at common law. Ex-parte Mack Bowen, and authorities.
The judgment is reversed, and the case will be remanded with directions to discharge the prisoner.- McCarty vs. State, 44 Ind., 214.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Killingsworth v. State, 90 Fla. 299 (Fla. 1925)…iction may be entered against the latter the judgment must be entered against the former. It is true that the conviction of the principals is an essential prerequisite, except in certain cases, to the punishment of the accessory. See Bowen v. State, 25 Fla. 645, 6 South. Rep. 459; Ex parte Bowen, 25 Fla. 214, 6 South. Rep. 65; Daughtrey v. State, 46 Fla. 109, 35 South. Rep. 397. In the Daughtrey case the accessory was indicted separately from the principal, and the latter was alleged to have been “convict…
-
Kauz v. State, 98 Fla. 687 (Fla. 1929)…fact. Ex parte Bowen, supra. Where, as here, the charge is of the dependent offense according to the mode of the common law, the conviction of the principal is an essential prerequisite to a judgment of guilt against such accessory. Bowen v. State, 25 Fla. 645, 6 So., R. 459. “Conviction” of the principal as here used means not merely a plea of guilty or a verdict of guilty by a jury but contemplates an adjudication of guilt by a court of competent jurisdiction. Dougherty v. State, 46 Fla. 109, 35 So. R.…
-
Thomas v. State, 73 Fla. 115 (Fla. 1917)…er the principal has or has not been convicted or is or is not amenable to justice; and in the last mentioned case may be punished in the same manner as.if convicted of being an accessory before the fact.” Also, see the discussion in Bowen v. State, 25 Fla. 645, 6 South. Rep. 459; Keech v. State, 15 Fla. 591; Montague v. State, 17 Fla. 662. Haying been indicted and'tried for the crime of being-an accessory before the [*120] fact, it is further contended that the common law principle prevails and that the d…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence