ISADORE JAMES, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction for second-degree murder, finding that the re-established indictment was invalid. The court relied on a prior ruling in Hall v. State to reach its decision.
No, the re-establishment of the indictment was not valid, and therefore the conviction based upon it must be reversed.
“Upon petition by the State Attorney alleging its destruction by fire there was an order reestablishing the indictment.”
Describes the procedural event that led to the re-establishment of the indictment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was indicted for first-degree murder. After the original indictment was destroyed by fire, the State Attorney petitioned to re-…
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 Second Degree Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The indictment in this case was for murder in the first degree. Upon petition by the State Attorney alleging its destruction by fire there was an order reestablishing the indictment. The trial upon this indictment as re-established, on a plea of not guilty thereon, resulted in a conviction of murder in the second degree. Writ of error has been taken to review the judgment.
The order re-establishing the indictment adjudged “that the copy of said indictment attached to said petition be and the same is hereby adjudged to be a substantial copy of said original destroyed indictment and that said original destroyed indictment be and the same is hereby re-established.”
The judgment is reversed on authority of Hall v. State, 88 Fla. 239, 101 South. Rep. 847.
West, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Browne, Terrell and Strum, J. J., concur.