JAMES E. PRIDGEON AND J. F. BOWDOIN, PLAINTIFFS 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 because the jury's verdict was inconsistent with the indictment's allegations, creating a material error in the judgment.
No, a jury verdict finding a larceny as a first offense is not consistent with, but is repugnant to, an indictment alleging that same larceny as a second offense.
“Such a verdict is not in accord with .but is repugnant to the allegations of the indictment, and for that reason the judgment rendered on the verdict as for a first offense is material error.”
This quote explains the core reasoning for reversing the conviction, highlighting the conflict between the jury's finding and the indictment's charges.
The plaintiffs in error were indicted for petty larceny of hogs, with the indictment alleging a first offense and a subsequent second offense. They pl…
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 Petit Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In this case the indictment in effect alleges that on a stated day the plaintiffs in error committed petty larceny of the hogs of C. for which they were convicted in the County Judge’s Court on a plea of guilty, and that on the same.day (Not aftenmrds on the same day) the said larceny of the hogs of C. was committed, the plaintiffs in error committed larceny of the hogs of W., and that the larceny from W. was a second offense. On a plea of not guilty the verdict in the Circuit Court is that the larceny from W. was a first offense, on which verdict a judgment of conviction was rendered as for a first larceny of hogs under the value of twenty dollars. Such a verdict is not in accord with .but is repugnant to the allegations of the indictment, and for that reason the judgment rendered on the verdict as for a first offense is material error. The judgment is reversed.
All concur, except Cockrell, J., absent by reason of illness in his family.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Mayo, 88 Fla. 96 (Fla. 1924)…homas v. Commonwealth, 22 Gratt. (Va.) 912; Wharton’s Criminal Proc. Sec. 1879-1881; 12 Cyc. 252; State v. Smith, 129 Iowa 709, 106 N. W. Rep. 187; 25 Stand. Ency. of Proc. 1008; Henderson v. State, 55 Fla. 36, 46 South. Rep. 151; Pridgeon v. State, 68 Fla. 98, 66 South. Rep. 564. The two Florida cases although not expressly deciding the point indicate strongly the Court’s thought upon the [*102] proposition. Both cases were for second effense larceny. In the first case the verdict was: “We the jury find…