ARTHUR DAUGHTRY, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction for fraudulently altering an animal's brand, finding that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that they could convict if either the brand or the marks were changed, as these constituted separate felonies with different penalties.
The trial court properly admitted the extrajudicial confession. However, the trial court erred in its jury instruction regarding the fraudulent alteration of an animal's brand and marks.
“The ruling was proper. There was evidence that the brand had been changed under circumstances indicating a [*416] fradulen't intent, and we do not consider the rule should he extended so as to require all the elements of the crime, including the personal participation of the accused, before the confession may be received.”
Reasoning for admitting the extrajudicial confession.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArthur Daughtry was convicted of fraudulently altering an animal's brand. During the trial, an extrajudicial confession was admitted into evidence. Th…
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 Corpus Delicti cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
Arthur Daughtry was convicted under an indictment charging him with fraudulently altering the brand of an animal not his own.
An extra judicial confession was admitted over the objection that the corpus delicti had not been proven. The ruling was proper. There was evidence that the brand had been changed under circumstances indicating a fradulen't intent, and we do not consider the rule should he extended so as to require all the elements of the crime, including the personal participation of the accused, before the confession may be received. See 3 Wigmore’s Evidence, Sec. 2072.
There is probably as much evidence tending to prove that the marks were changed as that the brand was changed, and the court therefore erred in charging the jury that if either was established, they might convict.
The fraudulent changing or altering the marks of an animal is a different felony, prescribed by Chapter 5663, Laws of 1907, with a different penalty, from the kindred felony of changing the brand, in the older act originally enacted in 1899, and now Section 3334 of the General Statutes of 1906.
The jurgment is reversed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ruiz v. State, 388 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…st recent discussion of the subject, the term “corpus delicti” is defined as meaning, and is used interchangeably with the elements of the crime in question. 335 So. 2d at 824, n.2, 825. The language which may suggest otherwise in Daughtry v. State, 65 Fla. 415, 62 So. 345 (1913) and Pickett v. State, 202 So. 2d 203, 205 (Fla.1st DCA 1967); see also, McQueen v. State, supra, at 503, refers only to the fact that the identity of the offender need not ordinarily be established by independent proof. Allen v. S…
-
Drysdale v. State, 325 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…eversed and remanded. MAGER and DOWNEY, JJ., concur. . We recognize that it is not necessary to the establishment of the corpus delicti to prove that the criminal agency was that of the particular defendant charged with the act, Daughtry v. State, 65 Fla. 415, 62 So. 345 (1913) ; 3 Wharton, Criminal Evidence § 691 (13th ed. 1973), however, in the instant ease, as there were only two people in the room in which the death occurred — appellant and the decedent — in order to establish the corpus delicti, the…
-
Pickett v. State, 202 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)…in the crime. The jailer’s independent testimony did not link Kaiser with the commission of the said crime, but such linking in the proof of the corpus delicti is not necessary under the holding of the Supreme Court of Florida in Daughtry v. State, 65 Fla. 415, 62 So. 345 (1913) that the corpus delicti rule should not be “extended so as to require all the elements of the crime, including the personal participation of the accused, before the confession may be received.” To the same effect see the Supreme C…