MAMIE BUNCH, 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.
Mamie Bunch was convicted of assault with attempt to murder in the second degree and challenged the verdict's sufficiency, arguing that the use of the word 'attempt' instead of 'intent' rendered the verdict unintelligible and described no crime. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that 'attempt' inherently carries the idea of intent to commit the crime.
The verdict is valid and sufficiently certain. The word 'attempt' carries with it the inherent idea that there was intent to commit the crime, making a verdict of 'assault with attempt to murder' equivalent in substance and legal effect to 'assault with intent to murder.'
“To say that one attempted to commit a crime, carries with it the idea that there was intent to commit the crime.”
This establishes the core holding that 'attempt' inherently implies intent, resolving the defendant's primary objection to the verdict's wording.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMamie Bunch was informed against in Suwannee County Criminal Court for unlawfully assaulting Lela Russel on November 14, 1908, from a premeditated des…
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 Assault With Intent To Commit Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
Hocker, J.
Mamie Bunch, the plaintiff in error was informed against in the Criminal Court of Record of Suwannee County, the information charging that she and another, on the 14th of November, 1908, unlawfully assaulted one Lela Russel, from a premeditated design to kill and murder the latter. On the trial the jury found the following verdict, viz.: “We the jury find the defendant, Mamie Bunch guilty of assault with attempt to murder in the second degree, so say we all.” There was a motion to arrest the judgment on the grounds,
1. The verdict does not find this defendant guilty of any crime known to the criminal laws of the State of Florida.
2. The verdict is so irregular upon its face as to be unintelligible, in its meaning and its findings.
This motion was overruled, and the plaintiff in error sentenced to two years in the penitentiary.
The only assignment of error is based on the action of the court in overruling this motion, and questions the sufficiency of this verdict. In the case of Washington v. State, 55 Fla. 194, 46 South. Rep. 417, the general requisites of a verdict are stated. It is also stated that the verdict should be regarded from the standpoint of the jury’s intention, and when this can be ascertained, if consistent with legal principles, such effect should be allowed to their findings as will really conform to their verdict. If the verdict is not sufficiently certain to clearly show what the jury intended, it will be fatally defective. Nickles v. State, 48 Fla. 46, 37 South. Rep. 312.
The contention here is that the use of the word “attempt” instead of the word “intent” vitiates the verdict, rendering it unintelligible and describing no crime. We do not think this contention should be sustained. To say that one attempted to commit a crime, carries with it the idea that there was intent to commit the crime.
In the case of Prince v. State, 35 Ala. 367, it is held: “Under an indictment for rape, a verdict finding the prisoner guilty of assault with attempt to commit a rape, is equivalent in substance and legal effect to a verdict of guilty of an assault with intent to commit a rape.” To the like effect see Johnson v. State, 14 Ga. 55; Rookey v. State, 70 Conn. 104, 38 Atl. Rep. 911; Felker v. State, 54 Ark. 489, 16 S. W. Rep. 663, and authorities cited in these cases; 1 McClain’s Crim Law, Section 222.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Taylor and Parkhill, JJ., concur. Whitfield, O. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barnhill v. State, 41 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1949)…t should be regarded from the standpoint of the jury's intention and when this can be ascertained such effect should be allowed to the findings, if not inconsistent with legal principles, as will clearly conform to their verdict. See Bunch v. State, 58 Fla. 9, 50 So. 534, 138 Am.St.Rep. 91; Yarborough v. State, 94 Fla. 143, 114 So. 237 and cases cited; Richardson v. State, 72 Fla. 154, 72 So. 665. However, a different rule prevails in this State with respect to the requirements for certainty in verdicts…1 / 2
-
Yarborough v. State, 94 Fla. 143 (Fla. 1927)…a. 649, 88 South. Rep. 621; Richardson v. State, 72 Fla. 154, 72 South. Rep. 665; O’Neal v. State, 54 Fla. 96, 44 South. Rep. 940; Edwards v. State, 54 Fla. 40, 45 South. Rep. 21; Washington v. State, 55 Fla. 194, 46 South. Rep. 417; Bunch v. State, 58 Fla. 9, 50 South. Rep. 534, 138 Am. St. Rep. 91; 16 C. J. 1099. The defendant was charged in the information with the offense of assault with intent to commit a felony. The [*146] felony described was assault with intent to commit murder in the first degr…
-
Vogel v. State, 124 Fla. 409 (Fla. 1936)…46 South. 417; Licata v. State, 81 Fla. 649, 88 South. Rep. 621; Richardson v. State, 72 Fla. 154, 72 South. Rep. 665; Long v. State, 42 Fla. 612, 28 South. Rep. 855; Morris v. State, 54 Fla. 80, 45 South. Rep. 456, 14 Ann. Cas. 285; Bunch v. State, 58 Fla. 9, 50 South. Rep. 534, 138 Am. St. Rep. 91; Yarborough v. State, 94 Fla. 143, 114 South. Rep. 237. Any words that convey beyond a reasonable doubt the jury’s meaning are sufficient. See Licata v. State, supra; O’Neal v. State, 54 Fla. 96, 44 South. R…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Washington v. State, 55 Fla. 194 (Fla. 1908)
- Nickles v. State, 48 Fla. 46 (Fla. 1904)