THOMAS MOORE, 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 affirmed a denial of a motion in arrest of judgment, holding that a defendant jointly indicted with others does not need to be arraigned separately if no objection is made before trial.
No, defendants jointly indicted do not necessarily need to be arraigned together. A defendant waives any objection to the method of arraignment if no objection is made before trial.
“The sole assignment of error iis “that the court erred in denying the motion of plaintiff in error in arrest of judgment.””
Identifies the specific legal error the appellant is raising on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas Moore, the plaintiff in error, was jointly indicted with other defendants. He was arraigned, and subsequently, a motion in arrest of judgment w…
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 Motion In Arrest Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The sole assignment of error iis “that the court erred in denying the motion of plaintiff in error in arrest of judgment.” The contention of the attorney for the plaintiff in error is that where several defendants are jointly indicted they must be araigned together, unless there is, prior to placing them at the bar, a severance ordered and entered of record. The authorities cited by counsel in support of the proposition have been examined and found not to support it. The apparent authority to the contrary contained in a statement found in I Chitty’s Criminal Law, 418, when traced to its source has no application. The correct r ile is given by Mr. Bishop (1 New Crim. Proc. section 729) as follows: “Persons jointly indicted may be arraigned separately, or what is more common, together. Yet each is asked whether he is guilty or not, and his answer constitutes his plea.” The purpose of an arraignment is to establish the identity of the accused, to acquaint him with the charge, and to obtain his answer or plea, and if he advises himself and answers the accusation by plea he waives such formalities, which are mere preliminaries to that result. Dixon v. State, 13 Fla. 631. The record in this case shows that no objection was made by plaintiff in error to the method of his arraignment, or that his codefendant was not arraigned, before trial, and in our judgment the assignment of error is not well taken, and the judgment should be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ex Parte: Archibald Livingston, 116 Fla. 640 (Fla. 1934)…there with the case. The accused was arraigned once.' That was enough. The purpose of an arraignment is' to identify the accused and give him an opportunity to plead and to inform him of the nature of the accusation against him. See Moore v. State, 44 Fla. 146, 32 South. Rep. 795; 2 Stand. Ency. of Proc. 864. [*653] • When the case was sent back to Madison County and the issue raised by the plea in abatement had been determined against the accused it was' unnecessary to arraign him but he did have the rig…
-
State v. Marlow, 501 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…testimony is collaterally or corroboratively material to the ultimate issue to be established. Gordon. One of the primary purposes of arraignment is to identify the accused. See Ex parte Livingston, 116 Fla. 640, 156 So. 612 (1934); Moore v. State, 44 Fla. 146, 32 So. 795 (1902). Additionally, in any criminal case, one of the elements which the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt is the identity of the accused. Although the identity of an accused may be established in a number of dif…
-
In re Rule 3.160(a), 528 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 1988)…. 827 (1933). The purpose of an arraignment is [*1180] to identify the accused and give him an opportunity to plead and to inform him of the nature of the accusation against him. Ex Parte Livingston, 116 Fla. 640, 156 So. 612 (1934); Moore v. State, 44 Fla. 146, 32 So. 795 (1902). We are satisfied that due process does not require the personal presence of a defendant in a courtroom before a judge when, through mechanical means, he can see the judge and the judge can see him. As the population grows, with…
Authorities Cited
- Dixon v. State, 13 Fla. 631 (Fla. 1869)