Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

87 Fla. 418

Osborne v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided May 1, 1924

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1924-05-01

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe,”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Dixon v. State

Relies on Haynes v. State · Roberson v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1924-05-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently January 1998

2 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

4019241930194019501960197019801990decided

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 →

Terrell, J.

¶1Joe Osborne, Chief of Police of Daytona, Florida, was indicted for assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree and upon trial was convicted of aggravated assault. A judgment imposing a fine of fifty dollars, or in default of payment thereof, confinement in the county jail for a period of thirty days was imposed, and wi’it of error taken to this court.

¶2The crime for which Osborne was indicted grew out of an attempt on his part to arrest without a warrant one C. T. Pent, the prosecuting witness, he having reasonable ground to believe that Pent had committed felony.

¶3The first, second, third, fourth and fifth assignments of error challenge the refusal of the trial court to admit evidence showing that Osborne had reasonable ground to believe that Pent had in fact committed a felony.

¶4Under Section 6029, Revised General Statutes of Florida, 1920, sheriffs, police officers and other executive officers in this State are not only authorized, but it is made their duty to arrest and take in custody without warrant, any person whom such officer has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, has committed any felony.

¶5Our statute seems to be in line with the general rule on this question. Robertson v. State, 42 Fla. 223, 28 South. *420Rep. 424; Haynes v. State, 71 Fla. 585, 72 South. Rep. 180; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio St. 340; 1 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 732; 2 R. C. L. 447, where many eases are cited.

¶6The refusal of the trial court to admit evidence showing that the defendant Osborne had reasonable ground to believe that Pent had committed a felony deprived him of substantial matter of defense that he was entitled to have go to the jury.

¶7The judgment of the Circuit Court of Yolusia County is, therefore, reversed, and a new trial awarded.

Whitfield, P. J., and West, J., concur.Taylor, C. J., and Ellis, J., concur in the opinion.Browne, J., not participating.
/87/fla/418 · .json · Public domain