WALKER BRYANT, 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.
Walker Bryant was convicted of arson with intent to defraud insurance companies for burning an insured building. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the conviction, rejecting Bryant's argument that the indictment was defective for ambiguously allocating the intent element between the act of insuring versus burning.
The indictment was sufficient and not subject to quashing. The statute requires burning with intent to injure the insurer, and the indictment, which is substantially in the language of the statute, adequately conveys that the intent relates to the burning, not the insuring. No harmful procedural errors occurred at trial.
“The "intent to injure the insurer" is an essential element of the crime. The overt act is the burning, not the insuring, of the property, which, coupled with intent to injure the insurer, constitutes the crime.”
Establishes the essential elements of the crime and clarifies that intent must accompany the burning, not the insuring.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn October 24, 1922, Bryant allegedly set fire to and burned a building owned by W. T. Gould in DeSoto County, Florida. The building was insured again…
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 Arson cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
The count of the indictment upon which there was a conviction charges that the defendant, “Walker Bryant, on the 24th day of October, A. D. 1922, at and in the County of DeSoto aforesaid, did then and there wil fully, maliciously and feloniously set fire to and burn a certain building there situate, to-wit: a building the property of W. T. Gould, alias W. T. Gould, Jr., which said building was then and there insured against loss or damage by fire, in and with the St.. Paul Pire and Marine Insurance Company, a corporation, and the New Jersey Fire Insurance Company, a corporation, with intent then and there to injure and defraud the said St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, a corporation, and the said New Jersey Fire Insurance Company, a corporation.” Upon a trial a verdict of guilty as charged was returned and defendant was adjudged guilty by the court. Writ of error was taken from this court.
There was a motion to quash the indictment, which was denied. This ruling constitutes one of the assignments of error. The “intent to injure the insurer” is an essential element of the crime. The overt act is the burning, not the insuring, of the property, which, coupled with intent to injure the insurer, constitutes the crime. Latham v. State, opinion filed November 8, 1924.
In the brief and in the oral argument in this Court on behalf of plaintiff in error, it is urged that the indictment alleges that the property was insured with intent to injure the insurer, whereas the crime denounced by the statute is Morning with intent to injure the insurer, that the indictment therefore charges no offense, and the ruling denying the motion to quash was erroneous. It is true that between the allegations of the act of burning and of the intent prompting the act, the building burned is described and the fact of its having been insured against loss or damage by fire is alleged, but the language employed or the form in which the allegations of essential elements are expressed are not such as to render the indictment eriticisable on the ground that it leaves uncertain the question of whether the intent to injure relates to the insuring or to the burning. The statute provides that “whoever burns a building or any goods, wares, merchandise or other chattels which are at the time insured against loss of damage by fire, with the intent to injure the insurer,” shall, upon conviction, be subject to the penalty imposed. See. 5111, Rev. Gen. Stats. There has, it seems, been no difficulty in construing the statute to mean that the intent relates to the burning and not to the insuring. The indictment is substantially in the language of the statute. This is sufficient. Akin v. State, 86 Fla. 564, 98 South. Rep. 609; Sasser v. State, 79 Fla. 490, 84 South. Rep. 380; Thomas v. State, 74 Fla. 200, 76 South. Rep. 780; Hollingsworth v. State, 73 Fla. 44, 75 South. Rep. 612; Schley v. State, 48 Fla. 53, 37 South. Rep. 518.
While there are a number of assignments of error, there is no question presented by any of them 'which has not been settled in former decisions of this court contrary to the contentions made. To discuss and analyze each assignment would amount to no more than a reiteration of well established principles to no useful purpose, The evidence upon every material allegation is ample to sustain the jury’s finding of guilt, and, while a number of paragraphs of the charge to the jury are made the bases of assignments of error, considered together, the charge fairly presents the case made by the proof.
There are no harmful errors of procedure, and in many cases this Court has held that a judgment of conviction will not be reversed even if technical errors are committed in ruling’s on the admissibility of evidence or in charges given or refused, where the evidence of guilt is ample and no fundamental rights of the defendant are infringed. Lewis v. State, 84 Fla. 466, 94 South. Rep. 154; Breen v. State, 84 Fla. 518, 94 South. Rep. 383; Ward v. State, 82 Fla. 383; 90 South. Rep. 157; Poyner v. State, 81 Fla. 726, 88 South. Rep. 762; Seymour v. State, 66 Fla. 133, 63 South. Rep. 7.
The judgment-will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roe v. State, 96 Fla. 723 (Fla. 1928)…, which have been considered by this Court, the defendant was charged with burning property with the intent to defraud an insurance company, and in each instance the information alleged the ownership of the property: Bryant v. State, 103 So. R. 170, 89 Fla. 26; Latham v. State, 102 So. R. 551, 88 Fla. 310; Hall v. State, 107 So. R. 246, 90 Fla. 719; Walker v. State, 90 So. R. 376, 82 Fla. 465. See also Goff v. State, 60 Fla. 13, 53 So. R. 327. On account of the indefiniteness of allegation in the respect…
-
Albano v. State, 89 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1956)…less of the confessions of the accused, the case would not be remanded for a new trial even though the trial judge failed to direct the jury that the confessions there “should be received and considered with great caution”. See also Bryant v. State, 89 Fla. 26, 103 So. 170; and Kelly v. State, 145 Fla. 491, 199 So. 764. Similarly in the case at bar we hold ■that the failure of the trial judge to instruct the jury on the probative weight of the evidence in question although technically error was necessari…
-
Melton v. State, 159 Fla. 106 (Fla. 1947)…parts thereof as the jury finds sufficient reason to reject; but you should not give effect to any part or reject any part, arbitrarily or capriciously.” (Emphasis supplied.) See Hinson v. State, 62 Fla. 63, 56 So. 674; Bryant v. State, 89 Fla. 26, 103 So. 170; Driggers v. State, 90 Fla. 324, 105 So. 841; Thomas v. State, 96 Fla. 243, 118 So. 22; Rogers v. State, 108 Fla. 373, 146 So. 561; Goddard v. State, 143 Fla. 28, 196 So. 596; Dougherty v. State, 154 Fla. 308, 17 So. (2nd) 290. Moreover, counsel fo…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Akin v. State, 86 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1923)
- Thomas v. State, 74 Fla. 200 (Fla. 1917)
- Schley v. State, 48 Fla. 53 (Fla. 1904)
- Seymour v. State, 66 Fla. 133 (Fla. 1913)
- Morton C. Nichols v. Walton, 82 Fla. 385 (Fla. 1921)
- Pratt Poyner v. State, 81 Fla. 726 (Fla. 1921)
- Breen v. State, 84 Fla. 518 (Fla. 1922)
- Hollingsworth v. State, 73 Fla. 44 (Fla. 1917)
- Lewis v. State, 84 Fla. 466 (Fla. 1922)
- Sasser v. State, 79 Fla. 490 (Fla. 1920)