McCaskill v. State
Citations
- 55 Fla. 117
Syllabus
<p>1. Incest is sexual intercourse between persons so nearly related to each other that marriage between them would be unlawful. At common law, incest was not an indictable offense, but was punishable in the ecclesiastical courts of England.</p> <p>2. An indictment is not fatally defective, which charges that the accused did commit the crime of incest by committing the crime of adultery and fornication in having sexual intercourse with his daughter. The allegation that the accused committed the crime of adultery and fornication is a mere conclusion and surplusage not affecting the sufficiency of the allegations of the single offense of incest.</p> <p>3. The statute defining the crime of incest does not make the knowledge by the accused of the relationship between him and the woman an element of the offense of incest, therefore it is not necessary for the indictment to allege such knowledge by the defendant.</p> <p>4. Where an indictment alleges that the offense charged was against the form of the statute, it is not essential to allege that the acts charged were unlawful or unlawfully done where that is not an element of the offense as defined by the statute. If the act charged be illegal, it would be superfluous to allege it to be unlawful; if the act charged is not unlawful, or was not unlawfully done, an allegation that is unlawful or was unlawfully done, does not render it indictable.</p> <p>5. At common law indictments for felonies should allege the acts constituting the crime to have been ‘feloniously done, but in consequence of the constitutional and statutory provisions of this State, the failure to allege that the criminal acts charged were feloniously done, does not affect the validity or sufficiency of the indictment when not required by the statute defining the offense.</p> <p>6. In the crime of incest there may be certain force or power exerted, resulting from age, relationship or circumstances of the parties, which overcomes the objections of the female
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that the age, consent, or lack of consent of a party to incest does not negate the crime
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Whitfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
14 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. GraySupreme Court of Florida· 1983-07-21· cited 105×
- Akin v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1923-12-20· cited 63×
- McDonald v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1908-06-15· cited 62×
- Huckaby v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1977-02-17· cited 34×
- Thomas v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1917-10-26· cited 24×
- Mercer v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1922-05-05· cited 15×
- Riggins v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1919-11-18· cited 9×
- Beam v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 2009-01-23· cited 4×
- People v. HopkinsNew York Supreme Court· 1963-02-20· cited 4×
- Lowe v. SwansonN.D. Ohio· 2009-07-07· cited 3×
- Keeton v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1989-10-04· cited 2×
- Scarborough v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1921-10-22· cited 1×
- State v. WilliamsDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1984-09-06· cited 1×
- State v. GriffinDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 2019-04-18
Cites
18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Taylor v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia· 1900-03-02· cited 54×
- Baldwin v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-06-15· cited 31×
- State v. PenningtonWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1896-01-24· cited 25×
- State v. WymanSupreme Court of Vermont· 1887-02-15· cited 21×
- Whittaker v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1894-06-14· cited 19×
- People v. BarnesIdaho Supreme Court· 1886-01-25· cited 18×
- State v. WinslowUtah Supreme Court· 1906-05-12· cited 17×
- Brown v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1900-01-15· cited 16×
- Motherwell v. TaylorIdaho Supreme Court· 1886-01-25· cited 15×
- Raiford v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia· 1882-02-15· cited 15×
- State v. FreddySupreme Court of Louisiana· 1906-05-07· cited 14×
- State v. NugentWashington Supreme Court· 1899-02-07· cited 10×
- David v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1903-10-26· cited 10×
- State v. GlindemannWashington Supreme Court· 1904-03-03· cited 8×
- Schoenfeldt v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1892-02-13· cited 4×
- Whidby v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia· 1905-01-26· cited 4×
- United States v. ThompsonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Michigan· 1853-10-15· cited 4×
- State v. MurphySupreme Court of Arkansas· 1884-05-15· cited 3×
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.