GEORGE COX AND WALKER BRYANT, PLANTIFFS 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.
Cox and Bryant were convicted of willfully and maliciously burning a dwelling house. The Florida Supreme Court reversed their conviction because the trial court erroneously excluded evidence of a verbal agreement to sell the property, which was material to proving the building was not a dwelling house at the time of the fire.
The trial court's exclusion of evidence regarding the verbal agreement to sell the property was error. The fact of an agreement to sell, as distinct from its terms, may be proved by parol evidence and is not barred by the best evidence rule. The excluded evidence was material and vital to the case, so the erroneous ruling was not harmless.
“There is evidence tending to prove that the building burned was not at the time of its destruction the dwelling house of the alleged owner and occupant for the reason that he and his family had previously vacated it with no intention to return and occupy it as a dwelling house and that at the time of its destruction by fire it was vacant.”
Establishes the factual basis for the defendants' defense that the structure was not a dwelling house at the time of the fire
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCox and Bryant were charged with burning a dwelling house. Evidence indicated the building's alleged owner and his family had vacated it with no inten…
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 Best Evidence Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
The charge upon which plaintiffs in error were tried and convicted was the wilful and malicious burning of the dwelling house of another. Sec. 5106, Rev. Gen. Stats. To review the judgment imposing sentence upon them writs of error were taken.
Reliance for reversal is placed primarily upon assignments challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict.
There is evidence tending to prove that the building burned was not at the time of its destruction the dwelling house of the alleged owner and occupant for the reason that he and his family had previously vacated it with no intention to return and occupy it as a dwelling house and that at the time of its destruction by fire it was vacant. 3 Cyc. 987; 5 C. H. 546; Smith v. State, 80 Fla. 315, 85 South. Rep. 911; Hicks v. State, 43 Fla. 171, 29 South. Rep. 631. In corroboration of the evidence of the alleged owner’s intention to abandon the dwelling as a residence testimony was offered to the effect that he was negotiating with another to sell the property and that a verbal agreement of sale of the property had been made. Objections to this testimony, on the ground that transfers of real estate could not be proved by parol evidence, were sustained and the evidence excluded. Rulings excluding this evidence were errors. The matter attempted to be proved was the fact that an agreement to sell the property had been made. The terms or provisions of the contract were not involved. In such a case the “best evidence” rule is not applicable. The fact of the agreement as distinct from its terms may be proved by parol evidence. 22 C. J. 987; Wilson v. Jernigan, 57 Fla. 277, 49 South. Rep. 44; Camp v. State, 58 Fla. 12, 50 South. Rep. 537; Seyman v. State, 66 Fla. 133, 63 South. Rep. 7. The excluded evidence being material and the rulings excluding it being error, and this being a vital point in the case, it can not be said that the erroneous rulings were not harmful.
Discussion of other assignments of error is not considered necessary.
For the error indicated the judgment is reversed!
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Enslow Sawyer and Sam Thomas Smythe v. State, 100 Fla. 1603 (Fla. 1931)…. See also Davis v. State 153 Ala. 48, 44 So. R. 1018, 127 A. S. R. 17, 15 Ann. Cas. 547 and note. This Court has held that occupation is an essential element of the common law crime of arson. Hicks v. State, 43 Fla. 171, 29 So. R. 631; Cox v. State 87 Fla. 79, 99 So. R 126. [*1609] Now in the light of this discussion let us examine the statute brought in question. Its title is as follows: “AN ACT TO DEFINE and Punish Arson, and to Eepeal Sections 5106, 5107, 5109, 5110, 5111 and 5114 of the Eevised Gene…1 / 2
-
State v. Cootner, 60 So.2d 734 (Fla. 1952)…the indictment owned the building and that the building was the dwelling house of some other person, but it must also be shown that the building is the dwelling house or residence of the party alleged in the indictment. In the case of Cox v. State, 87 Fla. 79, 99 So. 126, the plaintiffs in error were tried and convicted upon a charge of the wilful and malicious burning of the dwelling house of another. There was evidence to the effect that at the time of the burning, the building was not the dwelling hou…
-
Williams v. State, 100 Fla. 1054 (Fla. 1930)…See also Davis v. State, 153 Ala. 48, 44 So. R. 1018, 127 A. S. R. 17, 15 Ann. Cas. 547 and note. This Court has held that occupation is an essential element of the common law crime of arson. Hicks v. State, 43 Fla. 171, 29 So. R. 631; Cox v. State, 87 Fla. 79, 99 So. R. 126. Now; in the light of this discussion let us examine the statute brought in question. Its title is as follows: “AN ACT to Define and Punish Arson, and to Repeal Sections 5106, 5107, 5109, 5110, 5111, and 5114 [*1057] of the Revised…
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
- Thurman H. Smith v. State, 80 Fla. 315 (Fla. 1920)
- Wilson v. Jernigan, 57 Fla. 277 (Fla. 1909)
- Seymour v. State, 66 Fla. 133 (Fla. 1913)
- Camp v. State, 58 Fla. 12 (Fla. 1909)
- Hicks v. State, 43 Fla. 171 (Fla. 1901)