EDDIE RIGGINS, 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.
Eddie Riggins was convicted of murder in the second degree for shooting and killing Eva White with a shotgun, though the indictment alleged murder in the first degree with intent to kill Stella Riggins. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that an indictment for murder in the first degree legally includes the lesser charge of second-degree murder and that any technical errors in the trial were harmless given the ample evidence of guilt.
An indictment for murder in the first degree legally includes the lesser degree of unlawful homicide, so it is not necessary to expressly charge a lesser degree of murder. The conviction is valid, and any technical errors in evidentiary rulings or jury instructions were harmless where the evidence of guilt is clear and ample.
“As an indictment for murder in the first degree, in legal contemplation, includes a charge of the lesser degree of unlawful homicide, it is not necessary or proper that the indictment should expressly charge murder in any degree below that alleged.”
Establishes the core holding that a first-degree murder indictment legally encompasses lesser-included offenses, making it valid to convict on a lesser degree.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn November 30, 1917, in Lafayette County, Florida, Eddie Riggins fired a shotgun loaded with gunpowder and leaden bullets. The indictment alleged he …
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 Harmless Error Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
— The indictment herein for murder in the first degree alleges that Eddie Riggins in Lafayette County, Florida, on November 30, 1917, “with force and arms, and with a deadly weapon, to-wit, a shotgun loaded and charged with gunpowder and leaden bullets, and which shotgun he, the said Eddie Riggins, then and there had and held in his hands, in and upon one Stella Riggins unlawfully and from a premeditated design to effect the death of the said Stella Riggins did make an assault; and the said Eddie Riggins did then and there unlawfully and from a premeditated design to effect the death of the said Stella Riggins shoot off and discharge the leaden bullets aforesaid out of the shotgun aforesaid at and towards the said Stella Riggins, and with said leaden bullets aforesaid so shot off and discharged as aforesaid the said Eddie Riggins unlawfully and from a premeditated design to effect the death of the said Stella Riggins did strike, penetrate and wound one Eva White, in the body of the said Eva White, thereby and thus inflicting in and upon the body of the said Eva White unlawfully and from a premeditated design to effect the death of the said Stella Riggins one mortal wound of and from which said mortal wound the said Eva White did then and there die,” etc.
On write of error to a judgment of conviction of murder in the second degree it is urged that the court erred in sustaining the indictment on a, motion in arrest of judgment. .
As an indictment for murder in the first degree, in legal contemplation, includes a charge of the lesser degree of unlawful homicide, it is not necessary or proper that the indictment should expressly charge murder in any degree below that alleged. The statutory definitions of murder do not make malice an element of the offense. It is not essential that an indictment for murder shall charge a felonious homicide.
At common law indictments for felonies should allege the acts constituting the crime to have been feloniously done, but in consequence of the constitutional and statutory provisions of this State, the failure to-allege that the criminal acts charged were feloniously done, does not affect the validity or sufficiency of the indictment when not required by the statute defining the offense. McCaskill v. State, 55 Fla. 117, 45 South. Rep. 843; Sec. 3963 Gen. Stats. 1906, Compiled Laws, 1914; Baldwin v. State, 46. Fla. 115, 35 South. Rep. 220.
The main contention on the evidence is that the homicide was an accident, but there is ample evidence to support a finding of murder in., the second degree, and errors, if any, in rulings on testimony or in the charges were manifestly harmless.
A judgment of conviction will not be reversed on writ of error even if technical errors were committed in rulings on the admissibility of evidence or in charges given or refused or in other matters of procedure, where the evidence of .guilt is clear and ample and no fundamental rights of the defendants were violated, and it appears from the whole record that such technical errors, if any, were not prejudicial to.the defendants. Seymour v. State, 66 Fla. 133, 63 South. Rep. 7; Kersey v. State, 73 Fla. 832, 74 South. Rep. 983.
No material errors of law or of procedure appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
Browne, O. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kelly v. State, 145 Fla. 491 (Fla. 1941)…self will not be considered grounds for reversal •where the evidence leaves no room for reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.” See Leake v. Watkins, 73 Fla. 596, 74 Sou. 652; Barker, et al., v. State, 76 Fla. 164, 79 Sou. 436; Riggins v. State, 78 Fla. 459, 83 Sou. 267; Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 586, 84 Sou. 541; Section 2812 R. G. S., 4499 C. G. L. Also see Section 309 of Florida Criminal Pro'cedure Act, which is as follows: “Section 309. When .judgment not to be reversed or modified. No judgment shall…
-
Yarborough v. State, 94 Fla. 143 (Fla. 1927)…mation with the offense of assault with intent to commit a felony. The [*146] felony described was assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree. The offense of murder in the first degree includes the lesser degrees. See Riggins v. State, 78 Fla. 459, 83 South. Rep. 267. It was unnecessary to allege the degree of murder intended. See Davis v. State, 35 Fla. 614, 17 South. Rep. 565. There is no difference in the character or degree of offense between that with which the defendant was charged an…
-
Pratt Poyner v. State, 81 Fla. 726 (Fla. 1921)…will not be reversed even if technical errors were committed in rulings on the admissibility of evidence or in charges given or refused where the evidence of guilt is ample and no fundamental rights of the defendant are infringed. Riggins v. State, 78 Fla. 459, 83 South. Rep. 267; Dixon v. State, 77 Fla. 143, 80 South. Rep. 741; Barker v. State, 76 Fla. 164, 79 South. Rep. 436; Settles v. State, 75 Fla. 296, 78 South. Rep. 287; Milligan v. State, 75 Fla. 815, 78 South. Rep. 535; Smith v. State, 74 Fla. 44…
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
- Kersey v. State, 73 Fla. 832 (Fla. 1917)
- Seymour v. State, 66 Fla. 133 (Fla. 1913)
- McCaskill v. State, 55 Fla. 117 (Fla. 1908)