W. A. 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.
W. A. Smith was indicted for assault with a deadly weapon (knife) on McCuie Arnold with premeditated intent to kill. Smith challenged the indictment's sufficiency in a motion in arrest of judgment, arguing it failed to identify the victim. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding the indictment sufficiently identified the victim through contextual language despite a minor grammatical gap.
The indictment was sufficiently clear and not fatally deficient. Although the victim's name did not appear immediately after 'assault did make,' the surrounding language made it abundantly clear the assault was committed upon McCuie Arnold, and the defendant could not have been misled or embarrassed in preparing his defense.
“It is true that after words 'then and there an assault did make,' the name of the assaulted party does not appear, but what immediately follows makes it sufficiently clear that the assault was made upon McCuie Arnold.”
The court acknowledges the grammatical gap but finds the context sufficient to identify the victim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was indicted for assault with a knife on McCuie Arnold with premeditated design and intent to kill. The indictment contained formal charges that…
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 Assault With A Deadly Weapon cases and more on FLexlaw
Brown, C. J.
Omitting the formal portions, the indictment in this case charged that the plaintiff in error on a certain date, “then and there being, with a certain deadly weapon, to-wit: a knife which he the said W. A. Smith then and there had and held in and upon one McCuie Arnold, he the said W. A. Smith with a premeditated design and intent him the said McCuie Arnold then and there unlawfully and feloniously to kill and murder, then and there an assault did make, and him the said McCuie Arnold did then and there beat, bruise, cut, stab, wound and ill treat, contrary to the form of the Statute in such case made and provided,” etc.
The error complained of is the overruling of the defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment, which motion attacked the sufficiency of the indictment. The plaintiff in error went to trial without making any motion to quash the indictment upon the grounds set up in the motion in arrest. It is now urged that the indictment does not allege upon whom the assault was made. It is true that after words 1 ‘ then and there an assault did make, ’ ’ the name' of the assaulted party does not appear, but what immediately follows makes it sufficiently clear that the assault was made upon McCuie Arnold. The implication is so strong that the defendant could not possibly have been misled or embarrassed in the preparation of his defense. Under the rule laid down in Studstill v. The State, 83 Fla. 623, 92 So. 151, and a long line of cases preceding and following this ease, the court below was without error in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment.
Affirmed.
Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Donovan Studstill and John Lee Studstill v. State, 83 Fla. 623 (Fla. 1922)