ISAAC FRENCH, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction, holding that a jury verdict finding a defendant guilty of assault and attempt to murder sufficiently responded to a charge of assault with premeditated design to kill and murder.
Yes, the verdict is legally sufficient because the phrase "an attempt to murder" inherently includes the intent to murder, thus responding to the charge.
“In a criminal prosecution the verdict should be responsive to the issues involved; and when the offense charged consists of distinct elements, as of an act committed with a specific intent, a verdict that is not general, as that the defendant is guilty as charged, but specifically finds the defendant guilty of the act and does not mention the element of intent that is essential to a conviction for the offense charged, and does not make an equivalent finding, the verdict may be legally insufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction, and a jugment rendered thereon as for the -offense charged may be reversed even though, the legality of the verdict is not specifically challenged by motion in arrest of judgment or by motion for new trial.”
Establishes the general rule for verdict responsiveness and sufficiency.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was charged with assault with premeditated design and intent to kill and murder. The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilt…
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 Essential Element Of A Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In a criminal prosecution the verdict should be responsive to the issues involved; and when the offense charged consists of distinct elements, as of an act committed with a specific intent, a verdict that is not general, as that the defendant is guilty as charged, but specifically finds the defendant guilty of the act and does not mention the element of intent that is essential to a conviction for the offense charged, and does not make an equivalent finding, the verdict may be legally insufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction, and a jugment rendered thereon as for the -offense charged may be reversed even though, the legality of the verdict is not specifically challenged by motion in arrest of judgment or by motion for new trial. This might not be the rule when a lesser offense is included in the offense charged and the verdict and judgment are sufficient as to-the lesser offense. A verdict finding a defendant “guilty of an assault and attempt to murder in second degree,” is not in express specific terms responsive to a charge of assault “with a premeditated design and intent” to “kill and murder”; but the words “an attempt to murder,” as used in the verdict are sufficient to show a finding of an assault “with intent” etc., since an attempt to murder includes ah intent to murder; and the verdict considered in connection with the charge as made sufficiently shows a finding that responds to the charge. Bunch v. State of Florida, 58 Fla. 9.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Ellis, C. J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McNEAL v. Culver, 365 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1961)…light of 2 Fla. Stat. 1957, p. 2957, § 921.03, which contains the provision that “no judgment of guilty shall be rendered on a verdict unless the jurors clearly express in it a finding against the defendant upon the issue.” See also French v. State, 96 Fla. 657, 118 So. 815. Moreover, the record contains facts which would have instantly suggested to counsel that petitioner might have a good insanity defense. “[W]hen there is testimony of insanity sufficient to present a reasonable doubt of sanity the pres…
Authorities Cited
- Bunch v. State, 58 Fla. 9 (Fla. 1909)