EARLY BENNETT
v.
L. H. CHAPMAN, AS SUPERINTENDENT OF FLORIDA STATE PRISON
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 denied a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the indictment and verdict in a first-degree murder conviction were in substantial compliance with the Criminal Procedure Act, despite the petitioner's claims of fatal defects. The court found no prejudice to the defendant.
No, the indictment and verdict were in substantial compliance with the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant was not prejudiced by any alleged defects.
“It is sufficient to say that in so far as this case is concerned, the cases and the statute relied on have been superseded by the Criminal Procedure Act, Section 279 of which prescribes the form of indictment and 224 relates to the form of verdict that should be employed.”
Establishes that the relevant law has changed, superseding the petitioner's cited authorities.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEarly Bennett filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the verdict and judgment of conviction for first-degree murder were fatally …
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 First Degree Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
Petition for habeas corpus in this case was denied January 5,1942. The petition alleged that the verdict and judgment of conviction were fatally defective. Section 7140, Compiled General Laws of 1927; McDonald v. Smith, 68 Fla. 77, 66 So. 430; Casey v. State, 116 Fla. 3, 156 So. 282, and that line of cases are relied on to support this contention.
It is sufficient to say that in so far as this case is concerned, the cases and the statute relied on have been superseded by the Criminal Procedure Act, Section 279 of which prescribes the form of indictment and 224 relates to the form of verdict that should be employed.
The indictment is in substantial compliance with the statute and the verdict is responsive to it. The indictment is shown to have been for murder in the first degree and verdict shows that such was the understanding of the jury. No other error is charged and it is not shown that the defendant was prejudiced by the verdict or the judgment.
Our former judgment is adhered to and the petition for rehearing is denied.
It is so ordered.
BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD, BUFORD, CHAPMAN, THOMAS and ADAMS, JJ., concur.