ANTHONY CHANDLER, JR., 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.
Anthony Chandler was convicted in 1887 of carrying a concealed pistol and challenged his conviction on writ of error, arguing the indictment alleged the offense occurred in September 1887 but the evidence proved it occurred in February 1887, depriving him of fair notice. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that when an indictment charges a specific date for a non-capital offense, the actual date of commission is immaterial as long as it falls within the statute of limitations.
The court held that when an indictment in a non-capital offense charges the crime on a particular day, that specific day is immaterial and the offense may be proved to have been committed on any day within two years prior to the finding of the indictment, as long as it does not fall outside the statute of limitations.
“when the indictment charges an of-fence to have been committed on a particular day, the day is entirely immaterial and the offense may be proved to have been committed on any day not so remote that the statute of limitations would bar the prosecution.”
This quote establishes the core holding that the specific date in an indictment is immaterial as long as proof falls within the statute of limitations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChandler was convicted in the Circuit Court of Levy County in fall 1887 for carrying a concealed pistol. The indictment charged the offense was commit…
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.
Mitchell, J.:
The plaintiff in error was convicted at . the fall terna of ’the Circuit' Court in and for' Levy county, in the year 1887, for having a concealed weapon, to-wit: a pistol, on or about his person, and, he now brings his case before this court upon writ of error from the’ order of the Circuit Court overruling his notion to set aside the verdict of the jury and to grant a new trial.
No errors are assigned, but the plaintiff in error relies upon the grounds of his motion for new trial for a reversal.
1st. Because the verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence, and unsupported by the evidence in the cause.
2d. Because the indictment upon which the defendant was tried, and to' which he pleaded, charged the offense as having been committed on the first day of September, A. D. 1887, and at no other daté or time, and the only proof upon the trial was that he had a pistol concealed on his person during the month of February, 1887, by which the defendant was taken by surprise, and at an unfair advantage; his witnesses summoned in the cause for his defence being prepared to disprove the charge alleged in the indictment, when the charge as proved was at an entirely different date and time,several months prior to the date charged in the indictment.
3d. Because the verdict of the jury is contrary to the law and the evidence.
4th. Because the court erred in refusing to charge the jury at the request of the defendant, that the defendant could not be convicted under this indictment in this cause upon proof of having carried a concealed pistol in February, 1887, only, when the charge was alone that he so carried it in September, 1887.
5th. Because the court erred in charging the jury “That it made no difference in this case what date was charged in this indictment as being the one upon which the offense was committed, but that if they believed from the evidence that the defendant had a pistol concealed on or about his person at any time within two years prior to the finding of the indictment, they could convict the defendant, regardless of the time alleged in the indictment.”
The evidence fully sustains the verdict of the jury.
The second and fourth grounds of the motion we will consider together, as they, in fact, cover but one and the same ground.
All offenses not punishable with death shall be prosecuted within two years next after the same shall have been committed, (McClellan’s Digest, page 435, section 2); and under this statute the indictment, in a case not punishable with death, must charge that the offense was committed on some day within two years next before the finding of the indictment; but when the indictment charges an of-fence to have been committed on a particular day, the day is entirely immaterial and the offense may be proved to have been committed on any day not so remote that the statute of limitations would bar the prosecution. Dansey vs. State, 23 Fla., 316; Shelton vs. State, 1 Stewart & Porter, 208; State vs. Havey, 58 N. H. 377; State vs. Hughes, 82 Mo. 86; People vs. Stocking, 50 Barb., 573; State vs. Munson, 40 Conn., 475.
There is no cause for reversal upon either of the other grounds of the motion for new trial.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hunter v. State, 85 Fla. 91 (Fla. 1923)…e indictment and within the statute of limitations may be proven at the trial as the date upon -which the -crime was committed. Straughter v. State, 83 Fla. 683, 92 South. Rep 569; Whatley v. State, 46 Fla. 145, 35 South. Rep. 80; Chandler v. State, 25 Fla. 728, 6 South. Rep. 768. Every proven instance-of intercourse between the defendant and the female person named was in Jackson County and was prior to the return of the indictment and within the statute of limitations. -At the time of the first act of un…1 / 3
-
Bynum v. State, 76 Fla. 618 (Fla. 1918)…aving committed the offense alleged in the indictment on June 10th, 1917. It was competent for the State to prove the commission of the offense charged at any time within the two years next preceding the finding of the indictment. Chandler v. State, 25 Fla. 728, 6 South. Rep. 768; Warrace v. State, 27 Fla. 362, 8 South. Rep. 748; Weinert v. State, 35 Fla. 229, 17 South. Rep. 570. The State proved that the offense was committed in January, 1917. When this was done the State’s case was made out, and a convic…
-
Straughter v. State, 83 Fla. 683 (Fla. 1922)…in the indictment before the date of the return of the indictment and within the statute of limitations may be proved at the trial- as the date upon which the crime was committed. Whatley v. State, 46 Fla. 145, 35 South. Rep. 80; Chandler v. State, 25 Fla. 728, 6 South. Rep. 768. In Morgan, alias Porter, v. State, supra, Mr. Justice Parkhill, speaking for the court, said that if it appears illogical to hold that the precise date must be alleged and that the offense may be proved to have been committed on…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dansey v. State, 23 Fla. 316 (Fla. 1887)