ROBERT RITTER
v.
DEWITT SINCLAIR, AS SHERIFF OF POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA
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.
Robert Ritter sought habeas corpus relief from imprisonment based on a perjury conviction, arguing that the information charging him was fatally defective because it failed to allege by direct assertion that his testimony was false. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the information as sufficient under the statutory form prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Act, holding that such statutory forms are constitutional so long as they adequately apprise the defendant of the nature of the accusation.
The court held that the information is not fatally defective. The statutory form prescribed by the Legislature is sufficient provided it adequately apprises the defendant of the exact nature of the accusation and safeguards constitutional rights. The information in this case was sufficiently elaborate to meet these requirements and thus constituted a valid charge.
“We know of no reason why the Legislature cannot prescribe the form of a charge so long as the constitutional rights of the accused are safeguarded.”
Establishes the principle that statutory forms of charges are valid if they protect constitutional rights
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRitter was convicted of perjury based on an information charging that he falsely testified in a criminal proceeding on December 3, 1943, swearing that…
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 Constitutional Rights Of Accused cases and more on FLexlaw
On return to writ of habeas corpus it appears that petitioner is held by virtue of a judgment of conviction of perjury on an information charging that:
“. . . . Robert Ritter .... of the County of Polk and State of Florida, on the 3rd day of December in the Year of *273our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and forty-three in the County and State aforesaid in the hearing of a cause in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Polk County, Florida, in which the State of Florida was Plaintiff and Fletcher Gilmore was defendant after being duly sworn to speak the truth, falsely swore that Fletcher Gilmore was not one of the fellows fighting in the Big Apple during the night of September 24, 1943 and that Fletcher Gilmore was not inside the Big Apple that night, such matter being material in said cause and the said Robert Ritter then and there knowing that he swore falsely.”
There was a second count but it is not materially different from this one. The information was filed to conform with the statutory form in 923.03, F.S.’41, F.S.A.
Petitioner insists that the charge is fatally defective in not alleging any assignment; that is, it does not aver by direct and positive allegation that the testimony given was false. This position would have been well taken before the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Act. Fudge v. State, 57 Fla. 7, 49 So. 128.
Alabama has a similar statutory form and in that state an indictment in the statutory form has been held sufficient. Capps v. State, Ct. Appls. Ala., 194 So. 689. We know of no reason why the Legislature cannot prescribe the form of a charge so long as the constitutional rights of the accused are safeguarded. The charge here is sufficiently elaborate to apprise the petitioner of the exact nature of the accusation, thus conforming to our constitutional requirements. Sec. 11, Declaration of Rights, Florida Constitution.
The extent of our inquiry on habeas- corpus is whether the information wholly fails to charge a crime, otherwise the aggrieved party is left to his other remedies provided by law.
Our judgment is that the petitioner be remanded- to custody.
BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL and CHAPMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shifrin v. State, 210 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…5 (1929) and Fudge v. State, 57 Fla. 7, 49 So. 128 (1909) is not warranted. Under this statute it is no longer necessary to set forth in a perjury indictment, or information, the true facts in regard to the matters at issue. See Ritter v. Sinclair, 154 Fla. 272,17 So. 2d 97 (1944) ; Bazarte v. State, Fla.App.1960, 117 So. 2d 227; State v. Fabian, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 178. We have previously affirmed the judgment and sentence appealed herein and there has been no valid reason shown to recede therefrom.…
-
Petersen v. Mayo, 65 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1953)…re of such magnitude that the information utterly fails to charge . any crime or offense under the laws of the State of Florida. See Locklin v. Pridgeon, 158 Fla. 737, 30 So. 2d 102; Ex parte Stirrup, 155 Fla. 173, 19 So. 2d 712; Ritter v. Sinclair, 154 Fla. 272, 17 So. 2d 97; Craton v. Sinclair, 152 Fla. 292, 11 So. 2d 475. The sufficiency of the evidence would-be a-proper subject to be reviewed on appeal but not on habeas corpus in this [*49] Court. Atkinson v. Powledge, 123 Fla. 389, 167 So. 4. The inf…
-
State v. Fabian, 97 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)…he truth, falsely swore, etc. (stating the substance of the false testimony) such matter being material in said cause, and the said - then and there knowing that he swore falsely.” The Florida Supreme Court, in the case of Ritter v. Sinclair, 1944, 154 Fla. 272, 17 So. 2d 97, 98, held that the following information charged perjury with sufficient elaboration to apprise the defendant of the exact nature of the accusation and to conform to the statutory form: “ * * * Robert Ritter * * * of the County of Pol…
Authorities Cited
- Fudge v. State, 57 Fla. 7 (Fla. 1909)