WILL EVANS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case concerns whether a trial court can instruct a jury to reconsider a verdict that was initially recorded but defective. The court held that it was proper for the trial court to do so before the jury was discharged.
Yes, the trial court was authorized to call the jury's attention to a defective verdict and give them an opportunity to return a proper verdict before they were discharged.
“It was clearly the right and duty of the court before the discharge of the jury, to call their attention to the defective verdict and to give them an opportunity to return a proper verdict under the issues.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning for allowing the jury to reconsider their verdict.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe jury initially returned a verdict of 'guilty of manslaughter.' The clerk began reading the verdict but stopped, and the judge instructed the jury …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Assault With Intent To Commit Manslaughter cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
Will Evans was charged with assault with intent to commit murder, and was convicted of assault with intent to commit manslaughter. The only contention here is that the trial court, having received and recorded a verdict of “guilty of manslaughter,” a corrected verdict of “guilty of assault with intent to commit manslaughter” was unauthorized. The bill of exceptions contains the following:
“The jury retired and returned a verdict of, ‘We the jury find the defendant guilty of manslaughter. So say we all. R. L. Hay, Foreman.’ This verdict was handed by the foreman to the Clerk of the Court, who handed it to the judge, who, after reading the verdict, said, ‘Hearken to your verdict as recorded by the court,’ and passed it to the Clerk who read, ‘We, the jury, find defendant guilty of.’ He did not conclude, but handed the verdict back to the court who instructed the jury to return to the jury box and he would instruct them again as to the law in the case. Counsel for the defense objected to this on the ground that the jury had returned a verdict and it had been recorded by the court and the jury could not be charged over again, which objection was overruled and exception noted. The said judge did again deliver his opinion and give his charge to the jury upon the law in the case, and the said jury did then and there give their verdict as follows, to-wit: ‘Jacksonville, Florida, Nov. 1, 1913. We', the jury, find the defendant guilty of assault with intent to commit manslaughter. So say we all. R. L. Hay, Foreman.’ ”
It was clearly the right and duty of the court before the discharge of the jury, to call their attention to the defective verdict and to give them an opportunity to return a proper verdict under the issues. This was done, as shown by the bill of exceptions. It is manifest that the defective verdict was not recorded, if that was material here.
The verdict is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, and Hocker, J. J., concur. Cockrell, J., absent by reason of illness in his family.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Washington v. State, 86 Fla. 533 (Fla. 1923)…le to the defendants than the former verdict, we do not think this assignment is properly raised. Grant v. State, 33 Fla. 291, 14 South. Rep. 757, 23 L. R. A. 723; Bryant v. State, 34 Fla. 291, text 298, 16 South. Rep. 177, text 179; Evans v. State, 68 Fla. 79, 66 South. Rep. 421; Niblack v. State, 70 Fla. 227, 70 South. Rep. 415; Ford v. State, 34 Ark. 649; 3 Wharton’s Crim. Proc. Par. 1684; 2 Thompson on Trials, §2633, p. 1917. The foregoing authorities support the view that the verdict may be amended a…
-
Vogel v. State, 124 Fla. 409 (Fla. 1936)…n 7165, supra. Williams v. State, 41 Fla. 295, 26 South. Rep. 184. So under the information the accused could be convicted of the crime of assault with intent to commit manslaughter. Griffin v. State, 72 Fla. 79, 72 South. Rep. 474; Evans v. State, 68 Fla. 79, 66 South. Rep. 421. [*417] The word “attempted” does not destroy the meaning of the verdict. It carries the significance of an intent. See Bunch v. State, supra. So the phrase “guilty of attempted manslaughter” cannot he said to be so vague, uncer…
-
Jolly v. Charfauros, 15 Fla. Supp. 171 (Duval Cty. Cir. Ct. 1960)…e until accepted and filed, and is still under the control of the jury, who have the right and duty to amend or alter an improper or defective verdict to reflect their intention and decision. Bryant v. State, 34 Fla. 291, 16 So. 177; Evans v. State, 68 Fla. 79, 66 So. 421; 53 Am. Jur. 762 (section 1099). In this connection, the record refutes the assertion in ground 5 of the motion that the jury was allowed “to further deliberate in open court” and that the court in essence directed “the jury to enter jud…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence