Skip to main content

Johnson v. State

Citations

  • 51 Fla. 44

Syllabus

<p>1. Motions to quash indictments, together with the ruling of the court thereon, must be embraced in the record proper in order that an appellate court may consider an assignment of error based thereon.</p> <p>2. In an indictment for resisting or obstructing an officer in the discharge of his duty in carrying a prisoner arrested by him to a proper committing magistrate it is not neces- sary to allege the elements constituting the offence for which the arrest was made; and it is sufficient to allege the arrest and custody under a charge of carrying concealed weapons and for disturbing the peace in the presence of the officer making the arrest.</p> <p>3. Even if the charge of “disturbing the peace” is not included in the offence of “breach of the peace,” the charge of carrying concealed weapons, under Chapter 4929 of the Laws of 1901, is made an offense and a breach of the peace.</p> <p>4. An indictment must charge two distinct and independent offenses in order to make the same duplicitous.</p> <p>5. Where there is no suggestion that 'the indictment is so vague, indistinct and indefinite as to mislead the defendants and embarrass them in the preparation of their defence or expose them to substantial danger of a new prose cution for the same offense, no error was committed by the trial court, after the conviction of the defendants, in holding the indictment sufficient on a motion in arrest of judgment.</p> <p>6. The mere omission of the court to define the phrases “concealed weapons” and “disturbance of the peace,” as used in a charge, in the absence of the presentation of correct definitions in a requested instruction, does not constitute error.</p> <p>7. An incorrect expression in a charge may be rendered harmless upon a consideration of the whole testimony.</p> <p>8. An instruction assuming as true statements of fact that are controverted is properly refused.</p> <p>9. Upon an indictment against “Augustus Hays” a verdict against August Hase is not a fatal variance

Judges: Cockrell, Hocker, Parkhill, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.