Daughtry v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Daughtry v. State

62 So. 345, 65 Fla. 415

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMay 6, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 62 So. 345 (Daughtry v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daughtry v. State, 62 So. 345, 65 Fla. 415 (Fla. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Cockrell, J.

Arthur Daughtry was convicted under an indictment charging him with fraudulently altering the brand of an animal not his own.

An extra judicial confession was admitted over the objection that the corpus delicti had not been proven. The ruling was proper. There was evidence that the brand had been changed under circumstances indicating a [416]*416fradulen't intent, and we do not consider the rule should he extended so as to require all the elements of the crime, including the personal participation of the accused, before the confession may be received. See 3 Wigmore’s Evidence, Sec. 2072.

There is probably as much evidence tending to prove that the marks were changed as that the brand was changed, and the court therefore erred in charging the jury that if either was established, they might convict.

The fraudulent changing or altering the marks of an animal is a different felony, prescribed by Chapter 5663, Laws of 1907, with a different penalty, from the kindred felony of changing the brand, in the older act originally enacted in 1899, and now Section 3334 of the General Statutes of 1906.

The jurgment is reversed.

Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cockrell, J.

Arthur Daughtry was convicted under an indictment charging him with fraudulently altering the brand of an animal not his own.

An extra judicial confession was admitted over the objection that the corpus delicti had not been proven. The ruling was proper. There was evidence that the brand had been changed under circumstances indicating a [416]*416fradulen't intent, and we do not consider the rule should he extended so as to require all the elements of the crime, including the personal participation of the accused, before the confession may be received. See 3 Wigmore’s Evidence, Sec. 2072.

There is probably as much evidence tending to prove that the marks were changed as that the brand was changed, and the court therefore erred in charging the jury that if either was established, they might convict.

The fraudulent changing or altering the marks of an animal is a different felony, prescribed by Chapter 5663, Laws of 1907, with a different penalty, from the kindred felony of changing the brand, in the older act originally enacted in 1899, and now Section 3334 of the General Statutes of 1906.

The jurgment is reversed.

Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 So. 345, 65 Fla. 415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daughtry-v-state-fla-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack