WILLIAM KNIGHT, 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.
William Knight was convicted of arson for burning a barn adjoining a dwelling house, causing the dwelling to burn. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence sufficiently supported the verdict and that the jury instructions on alibi were proper.
The conviction is affirmed. The evidence, including accomplice testimony supported by circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to support the guilty verdict. The jury instructions on alibi were proper and not erroneous.
“A conviction may be had upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice where it satisfies the jury of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Establishes the legal standard for accomplice testimony sufficiency
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKnight was convicted of arson in Clay County circuit court. Evidence showed he had been previously discharged from employment by the building owner af…
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 Jury'S Role In Weighing Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C.
William Knight was convicted oí arson in the circuit court for Clay county, and took writ of error. The indictment charges that the defendant * * * did “willfully and maliciously set fire to and burn a certain building, to-wit: a barn * * * adjoining the dwelling house of one George Hagans there situate, and by the kindling of said fire and the burning of said building the said dwelling house of the said George Hagans was then and there wilfully and maliciously burned and consumed.”
The statute is as follows: “Whoever wilfully and maliciously burns the dwelling house or any building adjoining such dwelling house, by the burning whereof such dwelling house is burnt, shall be punished by imprisonment in the State prison for life, or for such term as the court may direct.”
It is shown in evidence that the building was used as a dwelling house as alleged, and the court properly limited the consideration to the charge as made under the quoted statute. Hicks v. State, 43 Fla., 171, 29 South. Rep., 631.
A conviction may be had upon the uncorroborated testi mony of an accomplice where it satisfies the jury of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jenkins v. State, 31 Fla., 196, 12 South. Rep., 677.
An accomplice testified to the burning by the defendant as alleged and this testimony has support in circumstances among them being the previous discharge of the defendant by the owner of the buildings by whom he had been employed for a number of years and the failure of the defendant to make any reply when accused of the crime just after the fire. The defendant introduced evidence of an alibi, but the jury returned a verdict of guilty. There is evidence to support the verdict and as there is nothing in the record to indicate that the jury were not governed by the evidence, the verdict will not be set aside as being against the evidence. The credibility and weight of the testimony were determined by the jury. Caldwell and Larkins v. State, 50 Fla., 4, 39 South. Rep., 188; Clinton v. State, 58 Fla., 23, 50 South. Rep., 580.
There was no error in giving the following charge: “The defense of an alibi has been offered which means that the defendant was not there when the house was set fire to and consequently did not do it. If from the evidence in the case you have a reasonable doubt as to the truth of the alibi, that is to say, whether the defendant was there or not, then you should give him the benefit of such reasonable doubt and find him not guilty.” Caldwell and Larkins v. State, supra. There was no request for a definition of reasonable doubt.
The judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur. Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Archer v. State, 673 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1996)…e State must prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, our cases have not found error when a jury is instructed on this standard but not given a definition of the term. See Barwicks v. State, 82 So. 2d 356 (Fla.1955); Knight v. State, 60 Fla. 19, 53 So. 541 (1910); accord Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 114 S.Ct. 1239, 1243, 127 L.Ed.2d 583 (1994) (stating that a trial court must instruct the jury on the necessity that the defendant’s guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; however, the…
-
Holland v. State, 129 Fla. 363 (Fla. 1937)…pt about his place was not to be found. The description of the fire as made by witnesses' showed the use of gasoline or some other highly combustible material. The evidence is ample to sustain the finding of the jury. In the suit of Knight v. State, 60 Fla. 19, text page 21, 53 Sou. Rep. 541, this Court held: “* * * There is evidence to support the verdict and as there is nothing in the record to indicate that the jury were not governed by the evidence, the verdict will not be set aside as being against…
-
Samuels v. State, 123 Fla. 280 (Fla. 1936)…uested charge was properly refused by the trial court. An accomplice may be a competent witness and his uncorroborated testimony is sufficient to support a conviction if it satisfies the jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See Knight v. State, 60 Fla. 19, 53 So. 541; Brown v. State, 42 Fla. 184, 27 So. 869; Moore v. State, 83 Fla. 270, 91 So. 180. [*284] The plaintiffs in error assigned error on numerous rulings of the trial court on the admission and the rejection of certain testimony. Upon conside…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Caldwell v. State, 50 Fla. 4 (Fla. 1905)
- Buck Clinton and Edward Clinton v. State, 58 Fla. 23 (Fla. 1909)
- Jenkins v. State, 31 Fla. 196 (Fla. 1893)
- Hicks v. State, 43 Fla. 171 (Fla. 1901)