HENRY BLACKMON, 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.
Henry Blackmon was convicted of first-degree murder in 1923 for a homicide committed in 1921. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, holding that the trial court properly instructed the jury that only a first-degree murder conviction was possible given the two-year gap between the crime and the indictment.
The trial court properly instructed the jury that only first-degree murder was a viable verdict because Florida law did not permit conviction of lower degrees of homicide when the indictment was filed more than two years after the offense. The instructions were not erroneous because the evidence conclusively established the crime was committed before April 2, 1921, making any lesser conviction legally impossible.
“There could therefore be no conviction of any degreee of homicide except murder in the first degree, as the indictment was not found until the 4th day of July, 1923, more than two years after the offence was committed.”
Establishes the legal principle that a two-year gap between the crime and indictment precluded conviction of lesser homicide charges
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBlackmon was indicted on July 4, 1923, for murder committed on March 28, 1921. The evidence at trial conclusively established that the crime occurred …
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 Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
Bbowne, J.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of murder in the first degree with a recommendation to mercy, on an indictment found on July 4th, 1923, that charged the homicide to have been committed on the 28th day of March, 1921.
-The only error assigned is that the Court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial, the 3rd and 4th grounds of which are that the Court erred in giving these instructions to the jury.
“The crime charged by the indictment in this case is alleged to have been committed on March 28th, 1921, and the indictment charging the defendants with murder was presented to the Court and filed on the 4th day of July, A.D. 1923, and for that reason you are charged that the defendant, Henry Blackmon, can not he found guilty of murder in the second degree, murder in the third degree, nor of manslaughter, and you are instructed that as to the defendant, Henry Blackmon, now in your charge, there is only one of two verdicts that you may render, one that is guilty of murder in the first degree, with a recommendation, and the other, that he is not guilty.
“If you find from the evidence'in the case beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant killed John Powell, or assisted one of the other defendants to kill him, at the time and place and by the means alleged in the indictment, then you must find whether or not such killing or murder in the first degreee and you must state in your verdict of what offence you find the defendant guilty.”
These charges must be considered in connection with and in relation to the evidence adduced on the trial, which conclusively established that the crime was committed before the 2nd day of April, 1921. There could therefore be'no conviction of any degreee of homicide except murder in the first degree, as the indictment was not found until the 4th day of July, 1923, more than two years after the offence was committed. Had there been any conflict in the testimony as to the date when the crime was committed, or if there had been any uncertainty about whether or not it was committed within two years from the date of finding the indictment, the charge would have constituted reversible error. In the light of the testimony, however, there was no error in giving the charges complained of.
The other grounds of the motion for a new trial relate to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. There is no merit in this contention.
The judgment is affirmed.
Taylor, C. J., and Ellis, J.; concur. Whitfield-, P. J., and West and Terrell, J. J., concur • in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Melvee Tucker v. State, 459 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1984)…to circumvent the statute of limitations by seeking indictments for first-degree murder and then forcing the accused to waive the statute of limitations defense. For the foregoing reasons I believe we should overrule Blackmon v. State, 88 Fla. 188, 101 So. 319 (1924), and Perry v. State, 103 Fla. 580, 137 So. 798 (1931), and their progeny, including Spaziano v. State, 393 So. 2d 1119 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1037, 102 S.Ct. 581, 70 L.Ed.2d 484 (1981). Due process and equal protection are evolving co…
-
Anderson Mitchell v. State, 157 Fla. 121 (Fla. 1946)…rtinent provisions of the Federal Constitution. Counsel for appellant bottoms his contention as to the unconstitutionality of the last sentence of Section 932.05 supra on our holdings in Nelson v. State, 17 Fla. 195; Blackmon v. State, 88 Fla. 188, 101 So. 319; Perry v. State, 103 Fla. 580, 137 So. 798; Peeler v. State, 107 Fla. 615, 146 So. 188. An analysis and study of the cited cases disclose that the challenged portion of the statute here involved was not before the Court and in fact was not in existe…1 / 2
-
Holloway v. State, 362 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…er, third degree murder and manslaughter) on which the statute of limitations has run. The trial court is not required to instruct the jury on any such lesser offense. Perry v. State, 103 Fla. 580, 137 So. 798 (1931); Blackmon v. State, 88 Fla. 188, 101 So. 319 (1924); Nelson v. State, 17 Fla. 195 (1879); Chaifetz v. United States, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 349, 288 [*335] F. 2d 133 (1960); 47 A.L.R.2d Anno. 887, 888 (1956); 1 Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure 418-19 (Anderson 1957). Indeed, a statute purporting…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence