CARL ANDREWS
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction for attempted manslaughter because the jury's verdict was legally insufficient to support the judgment. The court relied on a prior precedent, Vogel v. State, which established similar infirmities in jury verdicts.
No, the verdict is legally insufficient because it does not specify a crime that can be attempted. Attempting to commit manslaughter is not a cognizable offense.
“We, the jurors, find the defendant Carl Andrews and Hamp Andrews guilty of attempt to commit manslaughter.”
The verbatim jury verdict that was found insufficient.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarl Andrews and Hamp Andrews were indicted for assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree. The jury returned a verdict finding both def…
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 Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
— Plaintiff in error was tried on an, indictment charging assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree. The verdict was as follows:
“State of Florida v. Carl Andrews and Hamp Andrews.
“Indictment for Assault with Intent to Commit Murder.
“We, the jurors, find the defendant Carl Andrews and Hamp Andrews guilty of attempt to commit manslaughter. So say we all.
“J. F. Douglass, Foreman.”
The verdict in this case is afflicted with the identical infirmity which .was held to exist in the verdict in the case of Vogel v. State, 124 Fla. 409, 168 Sou. 539.
It can serve no useful purpose for us to repeat here what was said in the Vogel case. On authority of the opinion and judgment in the case of Vogel v. State, supra, the verdict is held insufficient to support the judgment and, therefore, the judgment is reversed.
*853So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Thomas, J., concur.
Brown, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Whitfield and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927’ and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.