JAMES ROBINSON, 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.
James Robinson was convicted of assault with intent to murder based on an information charging he attacked Oscar Blockson with a musket. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction, finding the information was deficient in form and substance and failed to adequately charge the offense of assault with intent to murder.
The information was insufficient in law, form, and substance and did not charge the offense of assault with intent to murder in sufficient language. The trial court erred in denying Robinson's motion in arrest of judgment.
“These grounds are well taken and the court erred in refusing the motion in arrest.”
The court's holding that the trial court erred in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment based on the insufficiency of the information.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn September 11, 1899, in Duval County, Robinson allegedly assaulted Oscar Blockson with a musket, beating, bruising, and wounding him. Robinson was t…
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 Sufficiency Of Information cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff in error was tried in the Criminal Court of Record for Duval county in July, 1900, upon an information charging that he, in that county, on September 11, 1899, “in and upon one Oscar Blockson with a certain deadly weapon, to-wit: a gun known as a musket which he the said James Robinson then, and there held in his hands, an assault did make and him. the said Oscar Block-son did then and there beat, bruise, wound and illtreat, he the said James Robinson then and there having a premeditated design and intent then and there unlawfully to kill and murder him, the said Oscar Blockson; wherefore, by virtue of the statute in such cases made and provided, the said James Robinson is deemed to have committed the crime of assault with intent to murder, contrary,” &c.
The jury rendered a verdict finding the accused guilty as charged in the information; and after overruling the motion of plaintiff in error in arrest of judgment, the court sentenced him to confinement in the State prison at hard labor for a period of ten years. From the sentence imposed this writ of error is taken.
It will be necessary to consider only the ruling denying the motion in arrest. This motion was based upon the following grounds, among others, vis: that the information is insufficient in law, form and substance upon which to base a judgment, and that the information does not charge in sufficient language the offence of assault with intent to murder. These grounds are well taken and the court erred in refusing the motion in arrest. Hogan v. State, 42 Fla. 562, 28 South. Rep. 763. See, also, Ruis et al v. State, 43 Fla. 188, 30 South. Rep. 802.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Archibald Hogan and William Hogan v. State, 42 Fla. 562 (Fla. 1900)
- Mitchell v. State, 43 Fla. 188 (Fla. 1901)