ED SMITH, 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.
Ed Smith was convicted of manslaughter in the death of Mary Ida Bogich, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed because the prosecution failed to prove the victim's identity through evidence, despite proving that Smith killed a child in the manner alleged.
The conviction must be reversed because the name of the person alleged to have been killed is a material and essential allegation that must be proved before a conviction can be sustained. Proof of manslaughter of an unnamed person does not satisfy an indictment charging manslaughter of a specifically named person.
“The name of the person alleged to have been killed in an information charging manslaughter is a material and essential allegation that must be proved before a conviction can be sustained.”
Establishes the core holding that victim identity is essential to prove in a manslaughter case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEd Smith was charged with manslaughter for driving his automobile at high speed in a negligent and reckless manner into Mary Ida Bogich, causing fatal…
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 Manslaughter cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
Information was filed by the Acting County Solicitor Philip D. Beall in the Court of Record of Escambia County against plaintiff in error charging him with the crime of manslaughter under the statute. Upon a trial there was a verdict of guilty as charged. From the judgment imposing sentence writ of error was taken.
One question only is presented, namely, the sufficiency of the evidence to supp'ort the verdict. In all other re spects the evidence is ample, but there is no proof that the person killed is the person alleged in the information to have been killed. The information charges that “the said Ed Smith, did then and there unlawfully, without authority of law, and by and through his own act, procurement and culpable negligence, and' with utter disregard for the life and safety of one Mary. Ida Bogich, drive said automobile of his culpable negligence, at a high rafe of speed and in a negligent, careless and reckless manner into and against the said Mary Ida Bogich, whereby the said Mary Ida Bogich was then and there violently thrown to the ground, and' the said Ed Smith in the manner and by the means aforesaid, without authority of law, and by and through his own act, procurement and culpable negligence did then and there give to and inflict upon the said Mary Ida Bogich, in and upon her body and head mortal wound's, bruises and contusions of which said mortal wounds, bruises and contusions so given and inflicted unlawfully without authority of law, and by and through the said act, procurement and culpable negligence of the said Ed Smith, the said Mary Ida Bogich then and' there on said day died.”
There is ample proof that a “little girl” was killed by plaintiff in error in the manner and by the means alleged in the information, but there is nothing in the evidence to even suggest that the “little girl” whom plaintiff in error is shown to have killed was the person alleged in the information to have been killed by him. The name of the “little girl” is not mentioned by a single witness and there is a total failure to identify by evidence the person actually killed with the person alleged to have been killed. The name of the person alleged to have been killed' in an information charging manslaughter is a material and essential allegation that must be proved before a conviction can be Sustained. Underhill on Crim. Ev. (2 ed.) §316, p. 552; 1 Wharton’s Crim. Ev. (10 ed.) §94, p. 286; 2 Bish. New Crim. Proc. §65; 1 Elliott on Ev. §200, p. 285; Jacobs v. State, 46 Fla. 157, 35 South. Rep. 65; Humbard v. State, 21 Tex. App. 200, 17 S. W. Rep. 126; Shepherd v. The People, 72 Ill. 480; Davis v. The People, 19 Ill. 74. While it is probable that the “little girl” referred to in the evidence as having been killed was the person alleged in the information to have been killed, we cannot infer, in the absence of any proof at all to that effect, that such was the case. An indictment charging manslaughter of a specifically named person is not proved' by evidence of the manslaughter of an unnamed person.
Because of the failure to offer evidence in proof of this essential allegation of a material element of the crime charged the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
Reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raulerson v. State, 358 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1978)…ed as the deceased in the indictment was the victim. He cites Freeman v. State, 101 So. 2d 887-88 (Fla.2d DCA 1958), where the court held that proof of identity was an essential element of the corpus delicti. Defendant also refers to Smith v. State, 80 Fla. 710, 86 So. 2d 640 (1920), where the information alleged that the victim’s name was “Mary Ida Bogich,” but the proof only shows that a “little girl” was killed. This was held insufficient. The proof of the identity of the deceased must be established b…
-
Lacy Stewart v. State, 158 Fla. 753 (Fla. 1947)…he 29th of October he saw Erich Spiller at the hospital. “He, Spiller, had a punctured wound outside of his right shoulder. There was a hole through his under jaw in his throat. Spiller died as a result of the-wound.” In the case of Smith v. State, 80 Fla. 710, 86 So. 640, this. Court, in reversing a homicide case, stated: “The deceased is referred to in the evidence as a ‘little-girl’. and, while it is probable that the ‘little girl’ referred to- [*757] as having been killed was the person alleged in th…
-
Holborough v. State, 103 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…ed in the indictment, was an essential element in the legal description of the offense, and the failure to prove it as laid is fatal to the conviction had. Id. (citations omitted). The supreme court followed the rule from Jacobs in Smith v. State, 80 Fla. 710, 86 So. 640 (1920), a case where the State charged the defendant with manslaughter. The charging document identified the victim as “Mary Ida Bogich.” Id. at 640. Although there was “ample proof’ that a “little girl” was killed by the defendant, ther…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jacobs v. State, 46 Fla. 157 (Fla. 1903)