DOYLE HALL, 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.
Doyle Hall was convicted of arson for burning a building belonging to Sam Williams with intent to defraud Rhode Island Insurance Company. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction and granted a new trial, finding that while the circumstantial evidence proved the building was burned, it did not establish beyond reasonable and moral certainty that Hall committed the arson or that he acted with the requisite intent to defraud the insurance company.
The court held that the indictment was sufficiently definite and charged the offense substantially in the language of the statute. However, the circumstantial evidence, while conclusive as to the burning of the building, did not establish beyond reasonable and moral certainty that Hall committed the arson, nor did it prove he acted with intent to injure the insurance company or that the building was insured at the time of the burning.
“when circumstantial evidence is relied on for conviction the circumstances when taken together must be of a conclusive nature and tendency, leading on the whole to a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused and no one else committed the offense charged”
This establishes the governing legal standard for convictions based on circumstantial evidence in Florida.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDoyle Hall was convicted in the Circuit Court of Lee County for unlawfully and feloniously setting fire to and burning a building owned by Sam William…
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 Arson cases and more on FLexlaw
Terrell, J.
Doyle Hall was convieted in the Circuit Court of Lee County for unlawfully and feloniously setting fire to and burning a building, the property of Sam Williams, with intent to injure and defraud Rhode Island Insurance Company, a corporation, said buildings at the time being insured in said company. A motion to quash the indictment and for a new trial were appropriately made. Both these motions were denied and writ of error was taken from this court.
The first assignment of error is based on the denial of the motion to quash the indictment.
An indictment should not be quashed if it charges the offense substantially in the language of the statute or in language of equivalent import. Secs. 6063 and 6064, Eev. Gen. Stats. 1920; Akin v. State, 86 Fla. 564, 98 South. Rep. 609, and cases there cited. It cannot be said that the indictment in this case is so vague, inconsistent and indefinite as to mislead the accused and embarrass him in the preparation of his defense or expose him after conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense.
The next and only additional assignment of error necessary to be discussed here is grounded on the refusal of the trial court to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial.
The evidence in this case was entirely circumstantial and under the statute (5111 Eev. Gen. Stats. 1920) the burden was on the State to prove that Doyle Hall did unlawfully and feloniously burn a building belonging to Sam Williams with intent to injure Ehode Island Insurance Company and that at the time of the burning said building was insured against loss by fire in said Ehode Island Insurance-Company.
The rule seems to be that when circumstantial evidence is relied on for conviction the circumstances when taken together must be of a conclusive nature and tendency, leading on the whole to a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused and no one else committed the offense charged. It is not sufficient that the facts create a strong probability -of and be consistent with guilt. They must be inconsistent with innocence. Whetson v. State, 31 Fla. 240, 12 South. Rep. 661; Kennedy v. State, 31 Fla. 428, 12 South. Rep. 858; Gantling v. State, 40 Fla. 237, 23 South. Rep. 857; Jenkins v. State, 35 Fla. 737, 18 South. Rep. 182; Pate v. State, 72 Fla. 97, 72 South. Rep. 517; 1 Whar. Cr. Ev. (3rd ed.) 22; Underhill's Cr. Ev. (3rd ed.) 16.
We have examined the evidence carefully and it is conclusive as to the burning of a building belonging to Sam Williams, but it does not lead to a reasonable or moral certainty or even to a strong probability that said building was burned by the defendant. There is further no evidence to show that the burning was done with intent to injure the Rhode Island Insurance Company, nor is it conclusively shown that said building at the time of the burning was insured against loss by fíré in said company.
For these reasons the judgment below is reversed and a new trial is awarded.
Whitfield, Ellis, Strum and Brown, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (30 total)
-
Crain v. State, 894 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2004)…nce. Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629, 631 (Fla.1956); McArthur v. State, 351 So. 2d 972 (Fla.1977). Circumstantial evidence must lead “to a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused and no one else committed the offense charged.” Hall v. State, 107 So. 246, 247 (Fla.1925). Circumstances that create nothing more than a strong suspicion that the defendant committed the crime are not sufficient to support a conviction. Williams v. State, 143 So. 2d 484 (Fla.1962); Davis; Mayo v. State, 71 So. 2d 899 (Fla…
-
Leavine v. State, 109 Fla. 447 (Fla. 1933)…person charged with crime must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, a strong probability of crime is not sufficient. Asher v. State, 90 Fla. 75, 105 South. Rep. 140; Cannon v. State, 91 Fla. 214, 107 South. Rep. 350; Hall v. State, 90 Fla. 719; 107 South. Rep. 246. In the case of Ford v. State, 80 Fla. 781, 86 South. Rep. 715, this Court held that where there is sufficient evidentiary basis for charges given and no material error of law appear therein, a mere failure to charge on circumstantial evidence will…
-
Frank v. State, 121 Fla. 53 (Fla. 1935)…d moral certainty that the accused and no one else committed the offense charged. It is not sufficient that the facts create a strong probability of and are consistent with guilt. They must be inconsistent with innocence. Hall v. State, 90 Fla. 719, 107 So. 246; Cannon v. State, 91 Fla. 214, 107 So. 360; Whetston v. State, 31 Fid. 240, 12 So. 661; Kennedy v. State, 31 Fla. 428, 12 So. 858; Gantling v. State, 40 Fla. 237, 23 So. 857; Jenkins v. State, 35 Fla. 737, 18 So. 182; Pate v. State, 72 Fla. 97, 72 S…
Previewing 3 of 30 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Akin v. State, 86 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1923)
- Jenkins v. State, 35 Fla. 737 (Fla. 1895)
- Gantling v. State, 40 Fla. 237 (Fla. 1898)
- Kennedy v. State, 31 Fla. 428 (Fla. 1893)
- Whetston v. State, 31 Fla. 240 (Fla. 1893)
- Pate v. State, 72 Fla. 97 (Fla. 1916)
- Walker v. Lavinia Willis, 72 Fla. 119 (Fla. 1916)