JOHN W. MCKINNIE AND SUSAN STRICKLAND, PLAINTIFFS 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.
McKinnie and Strickland were convicted of living together in an open state of adultery in Washington County. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and ordered a new trial because the State failed to prove venue—that the crime occurred in the charged county.
The conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered because the evidence failed to establish venue. Although venue need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence must raise a violent presumption that the offense occurred in the charged county or refer to known landmarks and localities from which a jury could reasonably infer such location. Here, the evidence entirely failed to establish where the crime was committed.
“it is necessary for an indictment to state the county within which the offense was committed and the proof must affirmatively sustain such allegation; and that in such a case a new trial will be granted when all the evidence taken in the court below fails to establish the venue as laid in the indictment”
Establishes the requirement that venue must be alleged in the indictment and affirmatively proven by evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcKinnie and Strickland were indicted and convicted at the Spring 1901 term of the Circuit Court for Washington County of living together in an open s…
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 Proof Of Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
Taylor, C. J.
The plaintiffs in error were indicted, tried and convicted at the Spring term, 1901, of the Circuit Court for Washington county of the crime of living together in an open state of adultery, and from the sentences imposed seek relief on writ of error returnable to the present term of this court.
The only error assigned is the denial of the defendants’ motion for new trial. This motion was based upon the following grounds: 1st. That the verdict is unsupported by the evidence. 2nd. That the verdict is contrary to the evidence. 3rd. That the verdict is contrary to the charge of the court. 4th. That the verdict is contrary to the law. The first contention under this assignment is that the State failed to prove the venue of the crime. In the case of Cook v. State, 20 Fla. 802, it is held that it is necessary for an indictment to state the county within which the offense was committed and the proof must af firmatively sustain such allegation; and that in such a case a new trial will be granted when all the evidence taken in the court below fails to establish the venue as laid in the indictment. In Warrace v. State. 27 Fla. 362, 8 South. Rep. 748, it is held that venue need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence raises a violent presumption that the offense was committed within the county, or if the evidence refers to localities and landmarks at or near the scene of the alleged offense, known or probably familiar to the jury, from which they may reasonably infer that the offense was committed in the county, it will be sufficient. Smith v. State, 29 Fla. 408, 10 South. Rep. 894; Duncan v. State, 29 Fla. 439, 10 South. Rep. 815; Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 184, 17 South. Rep.
559. After a careful examination of the evidence we do not thinl* that, even under the liberal rule as to the sufficiency of proof of venue announced in the cases last cited, the evidence in this case sufficiently establishes the venue of this crime as being in the county charged in the indictment. It wholly fails to show either in what county or State the crime was committed, neither does it refer to locations or landmarks at or near the scene of the alleged crime, known or probably familiar to the jury, from which they might reasonably have inferred that the offense was committed in the county charged.
It is further contended that the evidence in the case otherwise fails to make out the crime charged, but as the judgment must be reversed because of the failure of the proof as to venue, and another trial ordered, it will be improper for us to express any opinion as to the merits or demerits of the proofs upon the main facts in the case.
For the error found the judgment of the court below is reversed and a new trial ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Lowman v. State, 80 Fla. 18 (Fla. 1920)…v. State, 19 Fla. 864; Hopkins v. State, 52 Fla. 39, 42 South. Rep. 52; 16 C. J. 769. If the proof of venue does not come within the rule above announced, it will be insufficient. Warrace v. State, 27 Fla. 362, 8 South. Rep. 748; McKinnie v. State, 44 Fla. 143, 32 South. Rep. 786; Smith v. State, 42 Fla. 236, 27 South. Rep. 868; Cook v. State, 20 Fla. 802; Robinson v. State, 20 Fla. 804; Evans v. State, 17 Fla. 192; McCoy v. State, 17 Fla. 193. Venue need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. If…
-
Melvee Tucker v. State, 459 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1984)…ade County, or that the prosecution had not presented sufficient proof that the crime occurred in the county where the trial was held, the conviction clearly could not stand. Woodward v. Petteway, 123 Fla. 892, 168 So. 806 (1935); McKinnie v. State, 44 Fla. 143, 32 So. 786 (1902). Nonetheless, the Florida constitution does not mandate an allegation of venue in an indictment. Any requirement that venue be alleged in an indictment is a procedural rule stemming from common-law applications of due process con…
-
State v. Theron Black, 385 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1980)…144. Venue is an essential element in any criminal charge. Art. I, § 16, Fla. Const. As such, venue has long been held a necessary part of an indictment which must be sustained by affirmative proof at trial. Rimes v. State, supra; McKinnie v. State, 44 Fla. 143, 32 So. 786 (1902); Robinson v. State, 20 Fla. 804 (1884); Cook v. State, 20 Fla. 802 (1884); Evans v. State, 17 Fla. 192 (1879). This well established principle is reflected in rule 3.140(d)(3), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure: Time and Place.…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 29 Fla. 408 (Fla. 1892)
- Duncan v. State, 29 Fla. 439 (Fla. 1892)
- Warrace v. State, 27 Fla. 362 (Fla. 1891)
- Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 184 (Fla. 1895)
- Cook v. State, 20 Fla. 802 (Fla. 1884)