Holland v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Holland v. State

166 So. 468, 123 Fla. 142, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 945

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMarch 3, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 166 So. 468 (Holland 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

Holland v. State, 166 So. 468, 123 Fla. 142, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 945 (Fla. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this case the indictment charged manslaughter in two counts, viz.: (1) by culpable negligence in operating an automobile; (2) in operating an automobile while intoxicated. The jury found the defendant guilty on the second count. While the evidence tends strongly to sus *143 tain the charge of culpable negligence in the first count, the evidence does not prove that the defendant committed the unlawful act tuhile intoxicated under the second count of the indictment. As' the effect of the verdict is to acquit the defendant on the first count and as the evidence does not prove the charge stated in the second count of the indictment, the judgment should be and is reversed for a new trial on the second count of the indictment.

It is so ordered.

Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Buford, and Davis, J. J., concur. Ellis, P. J., and Brown, J., dissent.

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

Per Curiam.

In this case the indictment charged manslaughter in two counts, viz.: (1) by culpable negligence in operating an automobile; (2) in operating an automobile while intoxicated. The jury found the defendant guilty on the second count. While the evidence tends strongly to sus *143 tain the charge of culpable negligence in the first count, the evidence does not prove that the defendant committed the unlawful act tuhile intoxicated under the second count of the indictment. As' the effect of the verdict is to acquit the defendant on the first count and as the evidence does not prove the charge stated in the second count of the indictment, the judgment should be and is reversed for a new trial on the second count of the indictment.

It is so ordered.

Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Buford, and Davis, J. J., concur. Ellis, P. J., and Brown, J., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 So. 468, 123 Fla. 142, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holland-v-state-fla-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack