DAVE LOVETT, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a life sentence for murder, holding that the jury's verdict was invalid because it failed to specify the degree of homicide as required by statute. This decision highlights the strict requirements for jury verdicts in murder trials.
No, the verdict was insufficient because it did not specify the degree of homicide, which is a mandatory requirement by statute for all murder trials where a defendant is found guilty by a jury.
“We the,jury, do find the prisoner, Dave Lovett, guilty as charged in the indictment, and recommend Mm to the mercy of the court.”
The jury's verdict which was found to be insufficient.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDave Lovett was indicted for first-degree murder and found guilty by a jury with a recommendation for mercy. Based on this verdict, the trial court se…
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 First Degree Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
'Taylor, J.:
The plaintiff in error, on the'6th day of December, 1892, under an indictment charging him with murder in the first degree, was tried in the Circuit Court of Duval county, the trial resulting in the following verdict: “ We the,jury, do find the prisoner, Dave Lovett, guilty as charged in the indictment, and recommend Mm to the mercy of the court.” Upon this verdict he was sentenced to imprisonment for life in the State Penitentiary. Prom this judgment he brings his case here on writ of error'; and, among other things that we do not deem it essential to notice, assigns as error ¡that the court below erred in pronouncing any sentence upon him. This assignment. is well taken.
Section .2383 of our Revised Statutes makes it imperative that in all trials for murder where the defendant is found guilty by the verdict of a jury they must ascertain by their verdict the degree of the homicide of which he is guilty; and where the defendant on arraignment con fesses Ms guilt the court must determine the degree upon an examination of the testimony. In the case-of Buck Hall vs. State, decided at the present term,, we have fully and elaborately considered this statute,, and the sufficiency of verdicts such as the one here' rendered. The conclusions reached in that case apply with equal force to this one ; and it is, therefore, unnecessary to enter into any further discussion of the question here. The verdict rendered herein, in the presence of the statutory provision, was a nullity, and no judgment or sentence could legally have been pronounced thereon.
The judgment of the court below is'reversed and a new trial ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jenkins v. State, 35 Fla. 737 (Fla. 1895)…bearing on it. We have held that a finding like the one referred to above in cases of homicide is under our statute a nullity, and no judgment or sentence can be pronounced upon it. Hall vs. State, 31 Fla. 176, 12 South. Rep. 449; Lovett vs. State, 31 Fla. 164, 12 South. Rep. 452; Murphy vs. State, 31 Fla. 166, 12 South. Rep. [*835] 453. In Grant vs. State, 33 Fla. 291, 14 South. Rep. 757, the jury returned a verdict of manslaughter in the first degree and the court refused to. receive it, stating to the…
-
Reynolds v. State, 33 Fla. 301 (Fla. 1894)
-
Lovett v. State, 33 Fla. 389 (Fla. 1894)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence