WILL WILLIAMS, ALIAS BILL BAILEY, 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.
Will Williams was convicted in circuit court of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a misdemeanor. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that the defendant's voluntary statements to a deputy sheriff were properly admitted and that the trial court properly refused certain jury instructions.
The court held that: (1) voluntary statements made to an officer by a person under arrest are admissible; (2) no error in refusing the instruction on possession of stolen property as it was covered by the general charge; (3) no error in refusing the instruction requiring proof of taking without consent, because the indictment charged breaking and entering with intent to steal, not larceny, and proof of the breaking and entering with that intent was sufficient without proof that property was actually taken; and (4) the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
“It has been repeatedly held by this court that confessions or statements made by one to an officer having him under arrest are admissible if freely and voluntarily made”
Establishes the admissibility rule for voluntary statements made during arrest, which is the basis for overruling the first assignment of error.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn September 1903, Williams was tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Santa Rosa County on an indictment charging breaking and entering a buildi…
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 Admissibility Of Confessions cases and more on FLexlaw
Carter, P. J.
In September, 1903, plaintiff in error was tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Santa Rosa county upon an indictment presented against him at a former term charging the crime of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a misdemeanor, and from the sentence imposed this writ of error was taken.
One of the State witnesses, W. W. Harrison, testified that he, being at the time a deputy sheriff, arrested the defendant upon the charge made against him; that the defendant made certain statements to him at that time; that they were voluntarily made without any inducements being offered or any threats made. The witness was permitted to testify to such statements over defendant’s objection that they were inadmissible because made while under arrest.
It has been repeatedly held by this court that confessions or statements made by one to an officer having him under arrest are admissible if freely and voluntarily made, and as the defendant’s statements in this case were proven to be of that nature there was no error in admitting them. The first assignment of error which is based upon the ruling mentioned must, therefore, be overruled. Green v. State, 40 Fla. 191, 23 South. Rep. 851; McNish et al. v. State, 47 Fla. 69, 36 South. Rep. 176.
The second assignment of error is based upon the court’s refusal to give a certain instruction relating to the presumption which might be drawn from the possession of property stolen by means of a recent breaking and entry. So far as the requested instruction asserted correct propositions of law applicable to the evidence, it was covered by the general charge of the court, and there was, therefore, no error in refusing it.
The court declined to give an instruction requested as follows: “It devolves upon the State to prove by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the house was broken and entered and the property taken without the consent of the owner; and should the evidence on the part of the State fail to prove to you that it was without the consent of the owner you would acquit the defendant.” The refusal to give this instruction constitutes the basis for the third assignment of error. The indictment does not charge larceny or the taking of any property. It charges that defendant did unlawfully break and enter a certain described building with intent to steal, take and carry away certain goods and chattels therein being. Under these allegations the defendant could lawfully be convicted upon proof that he broke and entered the building with intent to steal, even though no property was actually taken, while the instruction requested required the proof to show that property was in fact taken. There was, therefore, no error in refusing it.
The fourth error assigned relates to the ruling denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial. The only .question presented in the briefs under this assignment is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. The court is of opinion that it is. The judgment of the Circuit Court will be affirmed.
Shackleford, J., and Whitfield, J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Hocker and Cockrell, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Nickels v. State, 106 So. 479 (Fla. 1925)…ison at the time and such confession be made to the officer having the accused in custody. Green v. State, 40 Fla. 191, 23 South. Rep. 851; McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 69, 36 South. Rep. 198; Sims v. State 59 Fla. 38, 52 So. Rep. 198, Williams v. State 48 Fla. 65, 37 South. Rep. 521; Moore v. State, 68 Fla. 91, 66 South. Rep. 431; McDonald [*668] v. State, 70 Fla. 250, 70 South. Rep. 24; Davis v. State decided at this term. That the confession was in fact so made should appear prima facie before it is admitt…
-
Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850 (Fla. 1930)…e to the officer having the accused in custody. Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So. R. 479, citing Green v. State, 40 Fla. 191, 23 So. R. 851; McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 69, 36 So. R. 176; Sims v. State 59 Fla. 38, 52 So. R. 198; Williams v. State, 48 Fla. 65, 37 So. R. 521; Moore v. State, 68 Fla. 91, 66 So. R. 431; MacDonald v. State, 70 Fla. 250, 70 So. R, 24. [*858] In the above case of Nickels v. State, it was also held that a written statement signed by defendant, consisting of questions and answer…
-
Flowers v. State, 152 Fla. 649 (Fla. 1943)…. 341, 161 So. 380; Harrison v. State, 110 Fla. 420, 148 So. 882; Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So. 479; Green v. State, 40 Fla. 191, 23 So. 851; McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 69, 36 So. 176; Sims v. State, 59 Fla. 38, 52 So. 198; Williams v. State, 48 Fla. 65, 37 So. 521; Moore v. State, 68 Fla. 91, 66 So. 431; McDonald v. State, 70 Fla. 250, 70 So. 24; Davis v. State, 90 Fla. 317, 105 So. 843; Chambers v. State, 309 U. S. 227, 60 S. Ct. 472, 84 L. Ed. 716; Bram v. United States, 168 U. S. 532, 18 S. Ct.…
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
- McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 69 (Fla. 1904)
- Green v. State, 40 Fla. 191 (Fla. 1898)