HENRY THOMAS, ALIAS KID HENRY, 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.
Henry Thomas was convicted under Florida law for wantonly and maliciously shooting into a railroad car. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his conviction because the information failed to allege that the railroad car was occupied or being used by any person, which is a necessary element of the offense.
The information is fatally defective because it fails to allege that the railroad car was being used or occupied by any person or persons. This element is required by the statute and must be expressly stated in the information. The motion in arrest of judgment should have been sustained and the conviction is reversed.
“Every fact which is an element in a prima facie case of guilt must be stated; otherwise there will be at least one thing which the accused is entitled to know, whereof he is not informed.”
Establishes the fundamental rule that all essential elements of an offense must be expressly alleged in the information
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenry Thomas was charged in Walton County with violating section 3628 of the General Statutes of 1906 by wantonly and maliciously shooting into a cert…
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
Parkhill, J.
In the criminal court of record for Walton county, the plaintiff in error was informed against for a violation of section 3628 of the General Statutes of 1906 by wantonly and maliciously shooting into a certain railroad car. The defendant was tried and convicted, and then moved in arrest of judgment upon the ground that the information does not allege that the railroad car was being used or occupied by any person or persons. This motion was denied, and upon writ of error it is urged that the court erred therein.
This question has been disposed of in the case of Hamilton v. State, 30 Fla. 229, 11 South. Rep. 523. As there pointed out, it is a well recognized rule in criminal pleading that where a statute creates an offense and describes its ingredients, not only is it sufficient to charge the offense in the language of the statute, or in language equivalent thereto, but it is necessary that it be so charged.
“Every fact,” as Mr. Bishop says, in 1 Cr. Proc. Par. 519, “which is an element in a prima facie case of guilt must be stated; otherwise there will be at least one thing which the accused is entitled to know, whereof he is not informed. And that he may be certain what each thing is, each must be charged expressly, and nothing left to intendment.
All that is to be proved must be alleged.” The statute makes it an offense to wantonly and maliciously shoot at or into any railroad car “which is being used or occupied by any person or persons.” The information fails to allege that the car was “being used or occupied by any person or persons.” In Hamilton v. State, supra, the information failed to do this, and the court said that the motion in arrest of judgment should have been sustained. As' there indicated, the shooting must be such as to endanger the lives or safety of -those who may be in or using the car. The information is fatally defective and the judgment will be reversed.
All concur, except Hocker, J., absent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Paul v. State, 129 So. 3d 1058 (Fla. 2013)…al force or violence against an individual. This conclusion is consistent with a case decided by this Court in 1909 that involved section 3628 of the Florida General Statutes of 1906 (the consolidated single paragraph statute). See Thomas v. State, 58 Fla. 120, 50 So. 954, 954 (1909). In Thomas, this Court concluded that an information was fatally defective because it did not allege that the railroad car that the defendant had shot into was being used or occupied by a person or persons. Id. at 122, 50 So.…
-
Taylor v. State, 67 Fla. 127 (Fla. 1914)
Authorities Cited
- Hamilton v. State, 30 Fla. 229 (Fla. 1892)