HENRY WILLIAMS, 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 judgment against Henry Williams, finding that the State failed to identify him as the perpetrator of an assault and attempted robbery. The court noted that the indictment was sufficient to charge aggravated assault but insufficient for attempted robbery, and crucially, no evidence linked Williams to the crime.
No, the State failed to present sufficient evidence to identify Henry Williams as the perpetrator of the assault and attempted robbery.
“The indictment makes out a case of ag gravated assault and was good, therefore, as against a motion to quash based upon the sole ground that it stated no offense under the Laws of- Florida.”
The court's initial assessment of the indictment's sufficiency for aggravated assault.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenry Williams was indicted for attempted robbery. The victim, Mrs. Smith, could not identify Williams as the assailant. Furthermore, Mrs. Smith faile…
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 Identification Of Defendant cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
The indictment makes out a case of ag gravated assault and was good, therefore, as against a motion to quash based upon the sole ground that it stated no offense under the Laws of-Florida. The attack upon the supposed irregularity in its presentment should have been raised by the plea in abatement.
We shall not undertake to point out the many defects in the indictment in falling short of an indictment for attempted robbery for the reason that the State so signally failed to identify Henry Williams as the man who committed the assault. Mrs. Smith, who was alone when the robbery was committed, testifies that she does not identify Williams as the man, nor does any one else pretend to identify him. Mrs. Smith thinks she would recognize the pocket book that was taken, but when shown one taken from Williams several months after the robbery, fails to identify it. The bill of exceptions discloses no other fact or circumstance looking towards identification.
Judgment reversed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 438 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…blished in Florida that the state must prove the identity of the accused as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt. Ivester v. State, 398 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Ponsell v. State, 393 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). See Williams v. State, 68 Fla. 239, 67 So. 43 (1914). Here, the state did not produce one scintilla of evidence that appellant was the man in the back seat who handed the license and check to the driver, who, in turn, handed these items to Ms. Armstrong. Although the driver’s license…