DEXTER CAWTHON
v.
STATE
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.
Dexter Cawthon was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree. On appeal, he challenged the indictment as vague and indefinite and argued that his confession was involuntarily obtained and should have been excluded. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the indictment was sufficiently clear and that the trial court properly admitted the confession.
The indictment was not so vague and indefinite as to require quashing, as it did not mislead the accused. The confession was properly admitted because the trial court determined it was voluntary after conducting a preliminary examination and resolving conflicting evidence in favor of admissibility.
“an indictment should not be quashed on account of defect in form, unless it is so vague and indefinite as to mislead the accused”
Establishes the standard for challenging an indictment on grounds of vagueness and indefiniteness.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCawthon was indicted and convicted along with another person for assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree. At trial, Cawthon's allege…
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 Appellate Review Of Evidentiary Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff in error was convicted with another under an indictment charging the offense of assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree.
It is contended here that the indictment was so vague and indefinite as to be fatally defective and should have been quashed on motion timely made.
While the indictment is not as clear in its allegations as perfect pleadings would require, it is well settled in this jurisdiction that an indictment should not be quashed on account of defect in form, unless it is so vague and indefinite as to mislead the accused. Dickens v. State, 50 Fla. 17, 38 Sou. 909; Clark v. State, 68 Fla. 433, 67 Sou. 135; Strobar v. State, 55 Fla. 167, 47 Sou. 4; Sasser v. State, 79 Fla. 490, 8 Sou. 380.
*396It is next contended that the alleged confession of the accused admitted over the protest of the accused on the trial of this case should have been excluded; that there was no sufficient 'evidence to sustain a conviction without this confession and that the confession was not admissible because it was obtained by coercion.
The trial judge conducted a preliminary examination not in the presence of the jury as to the circumstances under which the confession was obtained and made. The evidence touching this question was conflicting and the trial court resolved the conflicts in favor of the admissibility of the evidence.
In Davis v. State, 90 Fla. 317, 105 Sou. 843, we said:
“It is well settled that to render a confession by one ■charged with crime admissible in evidence against him it must be voluntarily made though it may not be the spontaneous utterance of the one charged and it may be obtained by questioning in custody of an officer, or in jail.
“The question of whether or not a confession is voluntary is one for the trial judge to determine and even though the evidence as to voluntariness be conflicting if called upon to review the ruling of the trial court, the appellate court must indulge the presumption that the finding was correct.
“Circumstances constituting improper influences that would exclude confession present questions of law reviewable by the appellate court, but the credibility of conflicting evidence are questions for the determination of the trial court, unless error in the conclusion in the court below is manifest.
“When the State has proven the confessions to be free and voluntary the burden is then cast on the defendant to rebut this proof.”
In support of these conclusions, we cited:
*397“Underhill on Criminal Evidence (2nd Ed.), 140; McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 69, 36 South. Rep. 176; McDonald v. State, 70 Fla. 250, 70 South. Rep. 24; Phillips v. State, 88 Fla. 117, 101 South. Rep. 204.” And also, “Thomas v. State, 58 Fla. 122, 51 South. Rep. 410.”
On authority of the opinions and judgments in the cases above cited, we hold that the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Wi-iitfield, C. J., and Brown, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Brown, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reddish v. State, 167 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1964)…ess of the confession must then go forward with evidence to support his position. The trial judge then rules on the basis of all of the evidence. Davis v. State, 90 Fla. 317, 105 So. 843; Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So. 479; Cawthon v. State, 118 Fla. 394, 159 So. 366; Bates v. State, 78 Fla. 672, 84 So. 373; Welsh v. State, 122 Fla. 83, 164 So. 835; Whitten v. State, 86 Fla. 111, 97 So. 496; Sims v. State, 59 Fla. 38, 52 So. 198; Louette v. State, 152 Fla. 495, 12 So. 2d 168. The divergent rules of…
-
Brown v. State, 245 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1971)…reely and voluntarily made, uninfluenced by the attending circumstances or by inducements, the burden is then cast upon Defendant to show that it was in fact not a voluntary confession. Sims v. State, 59 Fla. 38, 52 So. 198 (1910); Cawthon v. State, 118 Fla. 394, 159 So. 366 (1935). The Defendant attaches some importance to his request for a preacher either before or after the statement was made. One officer testified that Defendant was told he could see a preacher when he finished the statement. This test…
-
Flowers v. State, 152 Fla. 649 (Fla. 1943)…y and voluntarily made, it is error to admit the same into evidence against the party making it. See Williams v. State, 143 Fla. 826, 197 So. 526; Clay v. State, 143 Fla. 204, 196 So. 462; Smith v. State, 135 Fla. 835, 186 So. 203; Cawthon v. State, 118 Fla. 394, 159 So. 366; Dabney v. State, 119 Fla. 341, 161 So. 380; Harrison v. State, 110 Fla. 420, 148 So. 882; Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So. 479; Green v. State, 40 Fla. 191, 23 So. 851; McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 69, 36 So. 176; Sims v. State, 59 F…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 69 (Fla. 1904)
- Davis v. State, 90 Fla. 317 (Fla. 1925)
- Strobhar v. State, 55 Fla. 167 (Fla. 1908)
- Phillips v. State, 88 Fla. 117 (Fla. 1924)
- Dickens v. State, 50 Fla. 17 (Fla. 1905)
- McDonald v. State, 70 Fla. 250 (Fla. 1915)
- Byrd v. State, 70 Fla. 264 (Fla. 1915)
- Duke Thomas v. State, 58 Fla. 122 (Fla. 1909)
- Clark v. State, 68 Fla. 433 (Fla. 1914)
- Sasser v. State, 79 Fla. 490 (Fla. 1920)