STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT L. COSSACK AND DAVID A. HUTCHINS, APPELLEES
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.
Florida appealed the quashing of an indictment charging two men with assault with intent to commit rape. The appellate court held that the indictment sufficiently apprised the defendants of the charges and was not unconstitutionally vague, reversing the lower court's order.
The indictment was not unconstitutionally vague and clearly advised the defendants of the crime charged. The specific factual allegations adequately informed the defendants of the offense and did not mislead them or embarrass their defense preparation.
“The only purpose of an indictment is fairly to apprise the defendant of the offense with which he is charged.”
Establishes the fundamental standard for evaluating indictments—they must provide fair notice of charges.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees Robert L. Cossack and David A. Hutchins were indicted for assault with intent to commit rape against Mary Jean Mitchell. The indictment alle…
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 Intent To Commit Rape cases and more on FLexlaw
The State of Florida appeals from an order quashing an indictment filed against ap-pellees charging them with assault with intent to commit rape.
The quashed indictment charged that ap-pellees
“in and upon one MARY JEAN MITCHELL, a female person over the age of ten years, an assault did make, and her, the said MARY JEAN MITCHELL, did then and there forcibly and against her will attempt to ravish and carnally know, in that the said ROBERT COSSACK did then and there remove the slacks and underwear from the said MARY JEAN MITCHELL and the said DAVID A. HUTCHINS did hold her head and prevent her from screaming while the said ROBERT COSSACK did expose his sexual organ and lay on top of the said MARY JEAN MITCHELL and the said ROBERT COSSACK did attempt to effect sexual intercourse until he concluded he was physically unable to consummate the act of sexual intercourse * *
The court below quashed the indictment on the ground that
“the specific overt acts alleged in the indictment beginning with the phrase, ‘In that the said ROBERT COSSACK did’, in the body of the indictment, qualify in specific terms the general" conclusions of the substantive offense theretofore alleged; and said specific overt acts are hereby held to be insufficiently alleged to support the general conclusions that the offense was committed forceably and against the will of the alleged victim.”
The only purpose of an indictment is fairly to apprise the defendant of the offense with which he is charged. Drozewski v. State, Fla.1955, 84 So.2d 329, 330. No indictment should be quashed “unless the court shall be of the opinion that the indictment * * * is so vague, indistinct 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.” Fla.Stat., Sec. 906.25 (1965), F.S.A. The indictment quoted above clearly advised appellees of the crime with which they were charged and was not so vague as to mislead them and embarrass them in the preparation of their defense or to expose them to possible double jeopardy.
Consequently, the order quashing the indictment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and SHANNON and PIERCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MacHin v. State, 270 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…the above requirements to place defendant on notice. He was not misled or embarrassed in the preparation of his defense and he was not exposed to possible double jeopardy. State v. Moss, Fla.App.1968, 206 So. 2d 692; State v. Cossack, Fla.App.1967, 205 So. 2d 344. Defendant’s remaining point has been examined and found to be without sufficient merit to demand a reversal. No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment and sentence hereunder review are affirmed. Affirmed.…
-
State v. Stack, 33 Fla. Supp. 64 (Broward Cty. Cir. Ct. 1969)…petitioners are charged with by the information. To this argument the state replies that the only purpose of an indictment or information is fairly to apprise the defendant of the offense with which he is charged, State v. Cossack, Fla. App. 1967, 205 So. 2d 344; that the citation of the statute allegedly violated contributes to “definítizing” the charge and puts the accused on notice that he is charged with violation of the section referred to, CrPR 1.140(d) (1), Committee Note, 33 F.S.A., Rule 1.140, p. 6…
Authorities Cited
- Drozewski v. State, 84 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1955)