Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

155 Fla. 673

21 So.2d 143

Rosin v. Anderson

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided March 6, 1945

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1945-03-06

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"`The principal rule, as to the certainty required in an indictment may, I think, be correctly laid down thus: that where the definition of an offence whether by a rule of the common law or by statute, includes generic terms (as it necessarily must) it is not sufficient that the indictment should charge the offence in the same generic terms as in the definition, but it must state the species — it must descend to particulars.'"”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including Dilworth v. State, 344 So. 2d 863 - State v. Barnett

“"* * * on the 28th day of July, in the year of Our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-three, in the County and State aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away money, goods and chattels of one Edward Earle Baker, to-wit: lawful money of the United States of America in the amount of Two Hundred ($200.00) Dollars, a further and more particular description of said money, goods and chattels being to the State Attorney unknown; that at the time Louis A. Bruno committed the offense as aforesaid he was a municipal officer, that is to say, the said Louis A. Bruno was a member of the City Council of the City of North Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida, and said offense was connected with the discharge of the duty of his office, and that the said Louis A. Bruno has continuously thereafter held the aforesaid office to the date of the filing of this indictment. * * *" (Emphasis ours.)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Bruno

Relies on Ex Parte Pricha · State v. Meysenburg · Colson v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1945-03-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably State v. Beasley (1975), State v. Bruno (1958)

28 state decisions

8019451950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BUFORD, J.:

¶1 Writ of habeas corpus was issued by this Court on February 19, 1945, returnable instanter.

¶2 The petition and return show that relator is held under a capias issued pursuant to an information filed in the Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for DeSoto County, in the following language:

“In the Name and By the Authority of the State of Florida:
“Clyde H. Wilson, State Attorney of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit prosecuting for the State of Florida in the County of DeSoto, under oath information makes that M. A. Rosin, late of the County of DeSoto and State of Florida, on the 4th day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty four in the County and State aforesaid did unlawfully solicit and request money to be used in Arcadia, Nocatee, and other places in DeSoto County, Florida, prior to that certain primary election held in said county on the 23rd day of May 1944, for Ed Albritton, the said Ed Albritton being then and there a candidate for. office in the .aforesaid primary election, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.
*675 • Second Count.
“Clyde H. Wilson, State Attorney, of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit under oath information makes that M. A. Rosin, late of the County of DeSoto and State of Florida, on the 4th day of May, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and forty four in the County and State aforesaid, did unlawfully solicit and request money under the pretense of the same being used to proceure the votes of persons unknown to the State Attorney for Ed Albritton in that certain primary election held in said county on the 23rd day of May A. D. 1944, the said Ed Albritton being then and there a candidate for office in the aforesaid primary election, contrary to the statute in such’ case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.
Third Count.
“Clyde H. Wilson, State Attorney of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit prosecuting for the State of Florida in the County of DeSoto, under oath information makes that M. A. Rosin, late of the County of DeSoto and State of Florida, on the 4th day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty four in the County and State aforesaid did unlawfully receive money to be used in Arcadia, Nocatee and .other places in DeSoto County, Florida, prior to that certain primary election held in said county on the 23rd day of May, 1944, for "Ed Albritton, the said Ed Albritton being then and there a candidate for office in the aforesaid primary election, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity bf the State of Florida.
Fourth Count.
Clyde H. Wilson, State Attorney, of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, under oath information makes that M. A. Rosin, late of the County of DeSoto and State of Florida, on the 4th day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty four in the County and State aforesaid, did unlawfuly receive money under the pretense of the same being used to procure the votes of persons unknown to the State Attorney for Ed Albritton in that certain primary election held in said county on the 23rd day of May, A. D. 1944, the said Ed Albritton being then and there a candidate for *676 office in the aforesaid primary election, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided and.against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.”

¶3 The information and each count thereof entirely fails to charge any offense against the accused. See Colson v. State, 70 Fla. 267, 71 So. 277; also see State v. Meysenberg, 171 Mo. 1, 71 S.W. Rep. 229, and 1 Archb. Crim. Prac. & Pleading, page 275, Sec. 88, wherein it is said:

“It has already been mentioned that the indictment must state all the facts and circumstances comprised in the definition of the offense, by the rule of the common law or statute on which the indictment is founded. And these must be stated with clearness and certainty, otherwise the indictment will be had.
“The principal rule, as to the certainty required in an indictment may, I think, be correctly laid down thus: that where the definition of an offense whether by a rule of the common law or by statute, includes generic terms (as it necessarily must) it is not sufficient that the indictment should charge the offense in the same generic terms as in the definition, but it must state the species — it must descend to particulars.”

¶4 The information entirely fails to advise the accused as to what charge he is required to defend against.

¶5 Therefore, the petitioner is discharged.

¶6 So ordered.

CHAPMAN, C. J„ TERRELL and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
/155/fla/673 · .json · Public domain