JOE OSBORNE, 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.
Joe Osborne, Chief of Police, was convicted of aggravated assault after attempting to arrest C. T. Pent without a warrant. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court erred in excluding evidence that Osborne had reasonable grounds to believe Pent had committed a felony, which constituted a valid defense to the charge.
A police officer is authorized and duty-bound under Florida statute to arrest without warrant any person whom the officer has reasonable grounds to believe has committed a felony. The trial court erred by refusing to admit evidence that Osborne had reasonable grounds to believe Pent had committed a felony, as this was a substantial matter of defense entitled to go to the jury.
“sheriffs, police officers and other executive officers in this State are not only authorized, but it is made their duty to arrest and take in custody without warrant, any person whom such officer has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, has committed any felony.”
Establishes the statutory authority and duty of police officers to arrest without warrant based on reasonable belief of felony commission
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoe Osborne, Chief of Police of Daytona, Florida, was indicted for assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree. At trial, he was convicte…
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 Aggravated Assault cases and more on FLexlaw
Terrell, J.
Joe Osborne, Chief of Police of Daytona, Florida, was indicted for assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree and upon trial was convicted of aggravated assault. A judgment imposing a fine of fifty dollars, or in default of payment thereof, confinement in the county jail for a period of thirty days was imposed, and wi’it of error taken to this court.
The crime for which Osborne was indicted grew out of an attempt on his part to arrest without a warrant one C. T. Pent, the prosecuting witness, he having reasonable ground to believe that Pent had committed felony.
The first, second, third, fourth and fifth assignments of error challenge the refusal of the trial court to admit evidence showing that Osborne had reasonable ground to believe that Pent had in fact committed a felony.
Under Section 6029, Revised General Statutes of Florida, 1920, sheriffs, police officers and other executive officers in this State are not only authorized, but it is made their duty to arrest and take in custody without warrant, any person whom such officer has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, has committed any felony.
Our statute seems to be in line with the general rule on this question. Robertson v. State, 42 Fla. 223, 28 South. Rep. 424; Haynes v. State, 71 Fla. 585, 72 South. Rep. 180; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio St. 340; 1 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 732; 2 R. C. L. 447, where many eases are cited.
The refusal of the trial court to admit evidence showing that the defendant Osborne had reasonable ground to believe that Pent had committed a felony deprived him of substantial matter of defense that he was entitled to have go to the jury.
The judgment of the Circuit Court of Yolusia County is, therefore, reversed, and a new trial awarded.
Whitfield, P. J., and West, J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis, J., concur in the opinion.
Browne, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dixon v. State, 132 So. 684 (Fla. 1931)…into custody without a warrant any person who such *Page 845 officer "has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe," has committed a felony, or whom he finds in the act of committing any felony, or about to commit any felony. Osborne v. State, 87 Fla. 418, 100 So. 365; Haynes v. State, 71 Fla. 585, 72 So. 180. In Osborne v. State, supra, it was held that "Under the law of this State sheriffs, police officers and other executive officers are not only authorized, but it is made their duty to arrest a…
-
State v. Outten, 206 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1968)…zed salient aspects of the evidence. We will not belabor the matter with a further analysis. Suffice it to record the view that on the showing made, Trooper Peterson not only had the power to make an arrest, he had a duty to do so. Osborne v. State, 87 Fla. 418, 100 So. 365 (1924). The facts constituting probable cause need not meet the standard of conclusiveness and probability required of the circumstantial facts upon which conviction must be based. Lemus v. State, 158 So. 2d 143 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1963). Th…
-
Elvin E. Jeffcoat v. State, 103 Fla. 466 (Fla. 1931)…ther executive officers are not only authorized, but it is made their duty to arrest and take in custody without warrant any.person whom such officer has reasonable ground to believe and does believe has committed a felony. Osborne vs. State, [*475] 87 Fla. 418. The evidence shows that the jacket was dug-up by Oscar Jeffcoat, the uncle of the defendant, and T. Hatfield, on defendant’s property. At the most it could only be said that Oscar Jeffcoat and T. Hatfield were trespassers on the property of defenda…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Haynes v. State, 71 Fla. 585 (Fla. 1916)
- Roberson v. State, 42 Fla. 223 (Fla. 1900)