O'Neal v. State

Citations

• 54 Fla. 96

Syllabus

<p>1. Verdicts in criminal cases should be certain and import a definite meaning free from ambiguity; but any words that convey beyond a reasonable doubt the meaning and intention of the jury are sufficient, and all fair intendments should be made to sustain them. If the intention of the jury is clearly manifested in the language used mere inaccuracies of expression will not vitiate the verdict.</p> <p>2. In a criminal case the verdict should be construed with reference to the indictment or information and the entire record, and if when so construed it is definite and clearly expresses the manifest intention of the jury and is otherwise legal, mere inaccuracies of expression will not render the verdict void.</p> <p>3. Where an information in separate counts charges two distinct and separate, but similar and kindred felonies, such as grand larceny in one count and receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen in the other count, there can be a verdict convicting the defendant on both counts. In such a case the court may legally impose separate sentences for each offense.</p> <p>\\. In a prosecution for receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen a verdict finding the defendant guilty of “receiving stolen goods” is not responsive to the charge made against the defendant and is insufficient to support a judgment and sentence.</p> <p>5. Where O. & C. are prosecuted under an information charging them with grand larceny in one count and with receiving-stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen in another count, a verdict that finds “the defendants guilty, O. grand larceny and receiving stolen goods, and A. receiving stolen goods,” construed with reference to the information is a ■sufficient finding that O. is guilty of grand larceny, but is insufficient as a finding of guilty of receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen as to O. or A.</p>