Skip to main content

Johnson v. State

Citations

  • 58 Fla. 68

Syllabus

<p>1. An information that alleges all the essentials of a statutory offense in language equivalent in force and meaning to the statutory terms and is not so framed as to mislead defendant or to embarrass him in the preparation of his defense or to expose him to another prosecution for the same offense, will not be held fatally defective on motion to quash.</p> <p>2. Where in alleging a statutory offense in which violence is an element, an allegation of the unlawful use of force may under the circumstances alleged to be equivalent to an allegation of violence.</p> <p>3. Section 3882 General Statutes of 1906 authorizes informations charging offenses to be filed in vacation in the Criminal Courts of Record, and where an information is properly lodged with the clerk of the court, an omitted file mark may by order of the court be placed upon the information nunc pro tunc when the facts warrant it.</p> <p>i. When an information is properly marked filed nunc pro, tunc as of the day it was lodged with the clerk, a capias issued after the information was so lodged is not illegal and is admissible in evidence.</p> <p>5 A charge that the defendant is presumed to know what he was doing and whether it was right or wrong and that the burden of proof is upon the defendant to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to the defendant’s knowledge at the time of the commission of the offense, is not reversible error where in the same sentence of the charge the jury is instructed that “if from all the evidence in the ease” they have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant knew what he was doing at the time of the commission of the offense, if an offense was committed, they will find the defendant not guilty.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “The allegation that the officer was lawfully and by virtue of his office proceeding under a capias to make the arrest is a sufficient charge that the officer was legally author ized to execute the command of the capias, and that the capias was legal process.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

3 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.