JESSE J. WETHERFORD, 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 withholding support from a minor child, finding the jury instructions confusing and potentially harmful to the defendant. The court held that the jury should have been allowed to specify whether the withholding of support was from the wife or the child, especially given the statute's proviso regarding divorce grounds.
Yes, the jury instructions were confusing and harmful. The court held that the jury should have been able to specify whether the defendant withheld support from the wife or the child, as the statutory proviso regarding divorce grounds only applied to withholding support from the wife.
“The charges given were confusing and harmful to the defendant, since on the evidence the jury may have found the defendant not guilty as to the wife, but guilty of withholding support from the daughter, in which case the jury should so state in the verdict.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for reversing the conviction, highlighting the prejudicial nature of the jury instructions.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was charged with deserting and withholding support from his wife and minor daughter. He was convicted under the count related to withhol…
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 Verdict Form cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
Wetherford was tried in the Criminal Court of'Becord for Hillsborough County upon an information filed January 4, 1918, charging in one count that on February 15, 1916, in said county he did unlawfully and feloniously desert and abandon Ms wife and minor daughter; and in another count that he did unlawfully and feloniously withhold the means of support from his wife and minor child. He was convicted under the latter count and took writ of error. The statute, Section 1, Chapter 6483, Acts of 1913, contains a provision that any man who shall in this State withhold from his wife and child, or either of them, the means of support, shall be punished as stated therein, with a proviso that no husband shall be prosecuted under this Section for withholding from his wife where there is existing, at the time-of such desertion, such cause or causes as are recognized as ground or grounds for divorce, by Statute, in this State.
There is evidence that a cause of divorce existed. The court charged the jury that if they found from the evidence that' the defendant withheld from his . daughter means of support, they should convict him, stating “you see each count embraces both parties, but if he is guilty of any charge made in either-count, he is guilty under that count; if he is not guilty under either charge in either count, then he is not guilty under either count and you would acquit him.” And refused a requested charge that “if you find that the defendant deserted or withheld the means of support from the minor child, the form of your verdict will be: ‘We, the jury, find that the defendant deserted and withheld the means of support from the minor-child.’ ”
The charges given were confusing and harmful to the defendant, since on the evidence the jury may have found the defendant not guilty as to the wife, but guilty of withholding support from the daughter, in which case the jury should so state in the verdict.
Reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.