BEN MCNISH, SAM BUSH AND WILL POLITE, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction of three defendants for breaking and entering a dwelling house, holding that admission of their guilty pleas from a preliminary examination before a magistrate was prejudicial error, and that a jury instruction improperly suggested the defendant must prove innocence rather than the state prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The admission of the guilty pleas was prejudicial error because the justice failed to caution the accused that statements made might be used against them and failed to inform them of their rights, and this was compounded by the coercive circumstances surrounding the preliminary hearing. The jury instruction was also erroneous because it could mislead the jury into believing the defendant must prove innocence rather than the state prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
“the admission of these pleas was prejudicial error. The justice had no jurisdiction to try the offense charged, but merely 'to ascertain whether there is good ground to hold the accused to bail.'”
Establishes that the magistrate's role was limited and improper admission of guilty pleas from that proceeding was error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcNish, Bush, and Polite were jointly indicted, tried, and convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit a felony. At the …
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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit A Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
The plaintiffs in error Avere jointly indicted, tried and convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit a felony.
The State Avas permitted 0A*er the objections of the plaintiffs in error, hereafter called the defendants, to introduce in evidence the proceedings on the defendants’ preliminary examination before a justice of the peace, acting as committing magistrate, wherein they had pleaded guilty, one for burglary and tAvo as accessories thereto. It had been shown that the constable who Avas still in charge of these defendants had recently before promised one of them that it would be easier for him if he confessed, and an alleged confession so induced had been ruled out by the court. It had further been' shown that the justice had called upon them to say Avhether they Avere guilty or not guilty, and they Avere not cautioned or informed that the matter of the plea might be used against them in another trial. Under the circumstances aboAv recited the admission of these pleas was prejudicial error. The justice had un jurisdiction to try the offense charged, but merely “to ascertain Avhether there is good ground to hold the accused to bail.” Rev. Stats. Sec. 2874.
This court has held strictly to the rule that confessions of the accused should be acted upon with great caution, and it must be clearly shOAvn that Avhen a confession has once been obtained through illegal influence, such has been removed before a subsequent confession may be received. We have also emphasized the duty of a committing magistrate to caution the accused that any statement he may make may be used against him and to inform him of his rights in the premises. Coffee v. State, 25 Fla. 501, 6 South. Rep. 493; Jonah Green v. State, 40 Fla. 474, 24 South. Rep. 537; Anthony v. State, 44 Fla. , 32 South. Rep. 818. See, also, Bram v. United States, 168 U. S. 532, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 183; Rex v. Green, 5 Carr. & P. 312; Regina v. Arnold, 8 Carr. & P. 621. The conditions surrounding this preliminary hearing emphasized the propriety of this rule. It was held midst considerable excitement and there is uncontradict'ed testimony that threats against the lives of the accused were being made, unrebuked by the officer in whose custody and under whose protection they were.
It is also assigned as error that the coufit gave this charge: “If you believe from the evidence that the defendants at the bar or either of them did not break or enter this building it will be your duty to acquit them or either of them that you believe did not commit the offense.” While it is unquestionably the law that where the evidence proves a defendant innocent of the crime it is the duty of the jury to acquit, the charge is subject to the criticism that it may lead the jury to believe that the defendant must prove his innocence, and not that the Btate must prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As an isolated proposition the charge is misleading and should not be given.
We think it unnecessary to.notice the other assignments, as the questions presented thereby need not arise on another trial.
Judgment reversed and a new trial awarded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 69 (Fla. 1904)…f a former trial, and the verdict returned on such trial, on the hearing of a plea in bar of ‘once in jeopardy’ by such trial and verdict!” This is the second time that this case has been brought to this court on writ of error. See McNish v. State, 45 Fla. 83, 34 South. Rep. 219. For the reasons set forth in the opinion therein the judgment of the Circuit Court entered upon the verdict mentioned in this plea was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. The records of this court so show, and so mus…
-
State v. Outten, 206 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1968)…ntal coercion, then a subsequent confession will also be inadmissible unless it is shown that the coercive influences have been removed. Coffee v. State, 25 Fla. 501, 6 So. 493 (1889); Murray v. State, 25 Fla. 528, 6 So. 498 (1889); McNish v. State, 45 Fla. 83, 34 So. 219 (1903); Lyons v. State of Oklahoma, 322 U.S. 596, 64 S.Ct. 1208, 88 L.Ed. 1481 (1943), and Leyra v. Denno, 347 U.S. 556, 74 S.Ct. 716, 98 L.Ed. 948 (1953). The common thread running through these decisions, cited by the District Court,…
-
Dickens v. State, 50 Fla. 17 (Fla. 1905)…onflicting, we are of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in finding the defendant guilty. This finding was concurred in by the trial judge, who refused to disturb the verdict. We must do likewise. See McNish v. State, 45 Fla. 83, 36 South. Rep. 176, and numerous authorities there cited. All of the instructions requested by the defendant were given to the jury, and no complaint is made here of any of the charges, the argument upon this assignment being confined to the conten…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1897)
- Jonah Green v. State, 40 Fla. 474 (Fla. 1898)
- Coffee v. State, 25 Fla. 501 (Fla. 1889)