ABE JACKSON, 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.
Jackson pleaded guilty to gambling charges and was sentenced to three months in jail. He then sought to arrest the judgment, arguing the indictment failed to charge a statutory offense and lacked requisite factual allegations, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, finding the indictment substantially complied with statutory requirements and Jackson was adequately informed of the charges.
The indictment substantially complied with statutory requirements because its language was equivalent to and covered the statutory language, even though not in the precise terms of the statute. Jackson was fully advised of the offense charged and pleaded guilty, making it too late to challenge formal defects in the indictment.
“in all statutory offences it is the safer course to follow the language of the statute closely, but the language used in the charging part of the indictment is equivalent to and covers substantially the language of the statute fully, and is for this reason a substantial compliance with the rule which requires statutory offences to be charged in the very language of the statute”
Establishes the substantial compliance test for statutory offense charging, allowing deviation from precise statutory language if the meaning is adequately conveyed
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson and others were jointly indicted for gambling. Upon arraignment, Jackson pleaded guilty and was sentenced to confinement in the county jail fo…
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 Gambling cases and more on FLexlaw
Mitchell J.:
The plaintiff in error and others were jointly indicted for gambling, and upon being arraigned, Jackson pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to confinement in the county jail for the term of three months.
Motion to arrest the judgment was made, first, because the indictment does not charge an offence under the laws of the State of Florida; second, because the indictment does not charge the facts and circumstances of the offence named in the said indictment and defined by the statute upon which it is based. This motion was overruled and the case comes before this court upon writ of error to the Circuit Court of Madison County. The refusal of the Circuit Judge to arrest the judgment is assigned as error. The indictment, omitting the formal parts, charges that the defendant and others (naming them) “on the 12th day of April, A. D. 1890, at and in the County, Circuit and State aforesaid, with force and arms in the woods near the town of Ellaville, said County and State, unlawfully then and there played and engaged in a game of cards for money, which said game of cards was then and there a game of chance.” * * * *
The indictment is under Section 1, Chapter 3764, Act of June 7th, 1887, which is as follows: “If any person, by himself or herself, servant, clerk, agent, or in any other manner, shall have, keep, exercise or maintain a gaming table or room, or gaming implements or apparatus, or house, booth, tent, shelter or other place for the purpose of gaming or gambling, or in any place of which he or she may, directly or indirectly, have charge, control or management, either exclusively or with others, shall procure, suffer or permit any person or persons to play for money or other valuable thing or things, at any game whatsoever, whether heretofore prohibited or not, or if any person or persons shall play, or engage in any game of cards, keno, roulette, faro or other game of chance, at any place, or by any device whatever, for money or other thing of value, he, she or they, so offending, shall, on conviction, be imprisoned in the county jail not less than three months nor more than one year, or be imprisoned in the State prison not more than three years, at the discretion of the Court.”
The indictment is not in the precise language of the statute, and we will remark, that in all statutory offences it is the safer course to follow the language of the statute closely, but the language used in the charging part of the indictment is equivalent to and covers substantially the language of the statute fully, and is for this reason a substantial compliance with the rule which requires statutory offences to be charged in the very language of the statute, i Bishop on Criminal Procedure, Section 612; Humphreys vs. State, 17 Fla., 381; Tilly vs. State, 21 Fla., 242.
Under the indictment the defendant was fully advised as to the offence with which he was charged, and pleaded guilty thereto, and it is now too late for him to take advantage of any mere formal defect in the indictment.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Akin v. State, 86 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1923)…State, 73 Fla. 44, 75 South. Rep. 612. An indictment on a statute will not be quashed on the ground that it charges no crime if it charges the offense substantially in the language, although not in the exact words, of the statute. Jackson v. State, 26 Fla. 510, 7 South. Rep. 862. At common law indictments for felonies ■ should allege the acts constituting the crime to have been feloniously done; but in consequence of the constitutional and statutory provisions of this State, the failure to allege that th…
-
Taylor v. State, 67 Fla. 127 (Fla. 1914)…s. 3961, 3962 Gen. Stats. of 1906; Johnson v. State, 58 Fla. 68, 50 South. Rep. 529; Mills v. State, 58 Fla. 74, 51 South. Rep. 278; Stutts v. State, 52 Fla. 110, 42 South. Rep. 51; Roberts v. State, 26 Fla. 360, 7 South. Rep. 861; Jackson v. State, 26 Fla. 510, 7 South. Rep. 862. There was no error in denying the motions to quash and in arrest of [*129] judgment in. this case. In Hamilton v. State, 30 Fla. 229, 11 South. Rep. 523, and Thomas v. State, 58 Fla., 120, 50 South. Rep. 954, the defendant was ch…
-
Stutts v. State, 52 Fla. 110 (Fla. 1906)…anguage substantially the same or of the same import as that required by the statute and is sufficient, since it fully acquaints the accused with “the nature and cause of the accusation against him as required by the constitution. Jackson vs. State, 26 Fla. 510, 7 South. Rep. 862; Roberts vs. State, 26 Fla. 360, 7 South. Rep. 861; Burnham vs. State, 37 Fla. 327, 20 South. Rep. 548; Brass vs. State, 45 Fla. 1, 34 South. Rep. 307; Reyes vs. State, 34 Fla. 181, 15 South. Rep. 875. The only other contention i…
Authorities Cited
- Tilly v. State, 21 Fla. 242 (Fla. 1885)
- Humphreys v. State, 17 Fla. 381 (Fla. 1879)
- Dennis v. State, 17 Fla. 389 (Fla. 1879)