Oglesby v. State

Citations

• 83 Fla. 132
• 90 So. 825

Syllabus

<p>1. Pleas in abatement must be certain to a certain intent in every particular. They must leave nothing to be supplied by intendment and no supposable special answer unobviated.</p> <p>2. The only grounds of challenge to the favor applicable to grand jurors in this State are those provided for by Section 5954, Revised General Statutes.</p> <p>S. A public prosecution for a criminal offense must be conducted by the proper official representative of the State, and must not under any circumstances be placed under the entire management and control of private parties or their attorneys. It is proper, however, for the State Attorney, when there is no express statutory .prohibition, to obtain, with the consent of the court, the assistance of other counsel; and other members of the bar are not incompetent to be engaged for such assistance, and taking part in the trial, by reason of being retained and paid by private persons.</p> <p>4. When such assistants to the State Attorney are employed in a case, the State Attorney should always remain present at the trial, and see that a public prosecution does not degenerate into a private prosecution, and that the administration of the criminal law is not made a vehicle of oppression for the gratification of private malice, or the accomplishment of private gain or advantage.</p> <p>5. Where a plea in abatement avers that a member of the grand jury was a son-in-law of “a prosecutor” in the case, the plea is defective if it does not aver that the said grand juror participated in finding the indictment in the case.</p> <p>6. Where an indictment signed by an acting State Attorney is quashed because the acting State Attorney was employed by private .persons in the case, it is competent for the same grand jury with the assistance of a competent acting State Attorney to again indict the accused by due procedure.</p>