EX PARTE HARRY B. CLARKSON
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.
Harry B. Clarkson sought habeas corpus relief after his plea of autrefois acquit (double jeopardy) was overruled in a second embezzlement indictment. The Florida Supreme Court held that the habeas corpus writ was improvidently granted because the case involved a potential judicial error, not a jurisdictional question, and therefore the matter should proceed through ordinary appellate channels rather than habeas corpus.
The writ of habeas corpus was improvidently granted because the case involved a mere possible judicial error, not a jurisdictional question. The Circuit Court had full power and jurisdiction to determine whether the offenses were separate or continuing, and this ruling cannot be reviewed by habeas corpus until the case has reached its final stage.
“Without a critical examination of the allegations of the plea, we are satisfied upon mature reflection that we are confronted not with a question of jurisdiction, but a mere possible error in the ruling of the Circuit Court, and that therefore the writ of habeas corpus was improvidently allowed.”
Establishes the core holding that habeas corpus is inappropriate for reviewing alleged judicial errors rather than jurisdictional questions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClarkson was initially tried for embezzling $500 from Marion Hardware Company on August 15, 1915. After demanding a bill of particulars, the State pro…
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 Embezzlement cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
—Upon an original petition to this court, a writ of Habeas Corpus was granted Harry B. Clarkson. Upon the return to' the writ, the petitioner moved his discharge.
From the return it appears that Clarkson was tried upon an indictment charging him with embezzling five hundred dollars from the Marion Hardware Company, a corporation, the date of the embezzlement being charged as August 15, 1915. A bill of particulars being demanded, an itemized statement was furnished by the State covering the dates July 2, 1914, to March 30, 1915. Upon the trial the defendant successfully objected to testimony offered and the court directed a verdict of acquittal. Thereupon a new indictment was presented alleging the embezzlement, being in the same language as the first indictment excepting only the date was placed as April 1, 1915, and the defendant was alleged to have been the President of the Corporation, and not “the President and General Manager,” as in the former indictment. Again the defendant demanded a bill of particulars and one was furnished, showing items beginning April 1, 1915, and continuing to July 31. The defendant interposed a plea of autrefois acquit, and a demurrer thereto being sustained, this writ was promptly obtained.
Without a critical examination of the allegations of the plea, we are satisfied upon mature reflection that we are confronted not with a question of jurisdiction, but a mere possible error in the ruling of the Circuit Court, and that therefore the writ of habeas corpus was improvidently allowed.
. The Circuit Court has full power and jurisdiction to adjudge whether the offense was a separate or a continuing one. By his own action in demanding a bill of particulars, the petitioner shut off the State from proving any embezzlement subsequent to the last of March, and the State may have by indavertence unduly narrowed its indictment beyond the knowledge of witnesses then accessible. In other words, the Circuit Court had the power to decide that the offense of embezzling money on the first of April was a different offense from embezzling money on the thirtieth of March, even though the party wronged and the wrong doer were identical, and the wrong doer had continuous access by virtue of his employment to the funds of the party injured.
Though the minutes of the court do not disclose that the acquittal was ordered upon the ground of variance in the matter of time, they do not negative this suggestion.
The case has not reached its final stage, as in Nielsen, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 176, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 672, and the cases hold that the ruling may not be reviewed by habeas corpus. See 12 R. C. L. p. 1206; Hovey v. Sheffner, 16 Wyo. 254, 93 Pac. Rep. 305, 125 Am. St. Rep. 1037, 15 Ann. Cas. 318, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 227. Also Bronk v. State, 43 Fla. 461, 31 South. Rep. 248.
Writ discharged and prisoner remanded.
Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford. Cockrell, Whitfield and ElAÍs, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1974)…certiorari, we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (Lynch v. State, 275 So. 2d 32), which allegedly conflicts with prior decisions of this Court (Middleton v. State, 74 Fla. 234, 76 So. 785; Ex Parte Clarkson, 72 Fla. 220, 72 So. 675; Smith v. State, 93 Fla. 238, 112 So. 70) on the same point of law. Fla.Const, art. V, § 3(b)(3), F.S.A. In a prosecution for attempted rapé the statement of particulars alleged that the offense was committed on November 29, 1970, betwe…
-
State v. Beamon, 298 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1974)…within which the act or acts allegedly constituting the offense may be proved. Martin v. Karel, 106 Fla. 363, 143 So. 317 (1932); Smith v. State, 93 Fla. 238, 112 So. 70 (1927); Middleton v. State, 74 Fla. 234, 76 So. 785 (1917); Ex parte Clarkson, 72 Fla. 220, 72 So. 675 (1916). Also, the fact that the date charged in the first Information in this case was Nov. 26, 1972, does not control over a specification in the bill of particulars under that Information that the offense was committed on Nov. 24, 1972…
-
Middleton v. State, 74 Fla. 234 (Fla. 1917)…imes indefinite allegations before him. The bill of particulars however is no part of the pleadings, and the indictment is neither strengthened nor weakened by it, although a bill of particulars may have the effect, as was said in Ex parte Clarkson, 72 Fla. 220, 72 South. Rep. 675, to narrow the indictment as to the time within which the acts alleged constituting the offense may be proved. The bill of particulars apprised the defendant of the source from whence the money came into the defendant’s hands and…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hans Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1889)
- United States v. Drew, 131 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1889)
- Ex parte Bronk v. State, 43 Fla. 461 (Fla. 1901)