Smith v. State
Citations
- 40 Fla. 203
Syllabus
<p>1. Where an indictment contains two counts, the legal effect of a verdict finding defendant guilty as charged in the first count, is to acquit him of the offense charged in the second count.</p> <p>3. When a statute makes either of two or more distinct acts connected with the same general offense, and subject to the same punishment, indictable as distinct crimes, they may when committed by the same person at the same time be coupled in one count and constitute but one offense; an information therefore under Section -1, Chapter 4373, acts of 1895, charging the defendant in one count with setting up, promoting and conducting lotteries, disposing of money by means of lotteries, conducting lottery drawings for distributing prizes by chance, and selling lottery tickets for money, is not bad for duplicity.</p> <p>3. While Sections 1093 and 3925 Revised Statutes confer the legal right upon juries to be discharged where the circumstances therein mentioned exist, they were not designed to abridge in any way the judicial discretion vested in the judge to order such discharge whenever a proper case is presented for the exercise of such discretion, even though the circumstances warranting such discharge are not such as invest juries themselves, under the statute, with the right to demand tjieir discharge.</p> <p>4. Where in the trial of a felony not capital the jury retired to consider their verdict on the evening of one day and about noon of the following day were discharged by the court upon the assurance given' through their foreman in open court that they could not agree upon a verdict, such discharge does not operate as a bar to further prosecution of defendant under the same information even though the jury were discharged against his protest-</p> <p>5. A plea of former jeopardy, alleging that defendant was put upon trial of the same information at a former day; that'after taking the case under consideration under the charge of the court, and having same under adviseme
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- non-capital case; no fundamental error shown
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Carter
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Stevens Markets, Inc. v. MarkantonatosSupreme Court of Florida· 1966-06-29· cited 24×
- Livingston v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1984-09-13· cited 24×
- State v. TrafficanteDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1961-12-20· cited 21×
- Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-06-15· cited 18×
- Johnson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1909-06-15· cited 16×
- Fails v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1910-06-15· cited 13×
- Marianna Manufacturing Co. v. BooneSupreme Court of Florida· 1908-01-15· cited 12×
- Martinez v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1918-08-02· cited 8×
- White v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1912-01-15· cited 4×
- Busquet v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1986-12-16· cited 3×
- Cox v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1912-01-15· cited 1×
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Adams v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1894-06-15· cited 45×
- Ellis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1889-06-15· cited 40×
- Green v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1880-01-15· cited 35×
- King v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1879-01-15· cited 28×
- Bradley v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1884-01-15· cited 22×
- State v. MadoilSupreme Court of Florida· 1867-07-01· cited 12×
- Frances v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1855-02-15· cited 9×
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.