LOUIS ROGERS, 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.
Louis Rogers was convicted of murder in the second degree after being indicted for first-degree murder. On writ of error, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the conviction, rejecting arguments that the indictment was fatally defective for allegedly charging that Rogers wounded himself rather than the victim and for failing to allege the victim died within a year and a day of the wound.
The indictment properly alleges that Rogers wounded the victim, not himself, and the indictment need not allege the specific date of the victim's death where it sufficiently alleges that the victim died from the mortal wound inflicted on the charged date.
“the said Louis Rogers with the knife aforesaid did strike, cut, stab and wound, giving to the said Estell Little then and there with the knife aforesaid and upon the body of the said Estelle Little one mortal wound”
Court's analysis of the indictment language, establishing that it clearly charges the defendant wounded the victim, not himself
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 20, 1916, Louis Rogers was indicted for first-degree murder for striking, cutting, stabbing, and wounding Estell Little with a knife, inflictin…
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 Motion In Arrest Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
On May 20, 1916, Louis Rogers was indicted for murder in the first degree. In the indictment it is charged “that the said Louis Rogers, with a certain knife which he the said Louis Rogers then and there held in his hand, feloniously, wilfully and of his malice afore thought and from a premeditated design to effect the death of the said Estell Little, the said Louis Rogers with the knife aforesaid, did strike, cut, stab and wound, giving to the said Estell Little then and there with the knife aforesaid, in and upon the body of the said Estell Little one mortal wound * * * of which mortal wound, the said Estell Little died.” A verdict of murder in the second degree was rendered July 5, 1916. On October 6, 1916, a motion in arrest of judgment was made upon grounds, among others, that the indictment is fatally defective in that it does not allege that the defendant wounded the deceased and does show that the defendant wounded himself; (2) that it is not alleged when or where the decedent died. The motion in arrest of judgment was denied. Oh writ of error the only contentions are that the indictment is fatally defective in that it charges that the defendant wounded himself and not the deceased, and does not allege that the decedent died within a year and a day after the infliction of the mortal wound. ,
The words “the said Louis Rogers with the knife aforesaid did strike, cut, stab and wound, giving to the said Estell Little then and there with the knife aforesaid and upon the body of the said Estelle Little one mortal wound,” considered alone or with the other allegations, allege not that Louis Rogers wounded himself, but that he wounded Estell Little. See Ruth Smith v. State, 72 Fla. 449, 73 South. Rep. 354.
Where it is alleged in an indictment for murder in the first degree filed May 20, 1916, that a mortal wound was inflicted on March 10, 1916, and that “of which mortal wound the said” decedent “died,” and the trial and conviction is had in July, 19x6, and a motion in arrest of judgment is made and denied in October, 1916, a contention in such motion in arrest that the indictment is fa tally defective because it does not allege the date of the decedent’s death, is untenable. Ruth Smith v. State, 72 Fla. 449, 73 South. Rep. 354.
Judgment affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 75 Fla. 533 (Fla. 1918)…y prosecuting for the State after the trial jury had been selected, whereupon he made a motion to discharge the jury and declare a mistrial, that this motion was resisted by the defendant and was thereupon withdrawn. In the case of Rogers v. State, 73 Fla. 42, 74 South. Rep. 15, it was held “Where it is alleged in an indictment for murder in the first degree filed May 20, 1916, [*537] that a mortal wound was inflicted on March 10, 1916, and that ‘of which mortal wound the said’ decedent ‘died,’ and the t…
-
Jones v. Dugger, 518 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…, but had to be attacked prior to judgment. Smith v. State, 73 Fla. 449, 73 So. 354 (1916). Nor was an indictment fatally defective despite this omission where the alleged date of the offense was within one year of the trial. Smith; Rogers v. State, 73 Fla. 42, 74 So. 15 (1917). However, we are unable to find any judicial precedent from this state clearly stating that the rule has been or should be abolished. We agree with the analysis employed by the courts in Head and Ladd and find that the “year and a…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 72 Fla. 449 (Fla. 1916)