Brooks v. State
| Decision Date | 27 October 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 63-784,63-784 |
| Parties | Edward P. BROOKS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Dan Chappell, Miami, for appellant.
James W. Kynes, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Leonard R. Mellon and Victor V. Andreevsky, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
By this appeal, the appellant questions the correctness of a conviction as an accessory after the fact under § 776.03, Fla.App.,Stat., F.S.A., which reads as follows:
'Accessory after the fact--Whoever, not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, maintains or assists the principal or accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the has committed a felony or been accessory thereto before the fact, with intent that he shall avoid or escape detection, arrest, trial or punishment, shall be deemed an accessory after the fact, and be punished by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding seven years, or in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars.'
The information filed in the instant cause charged the appellant with the violation thereof and averred the following relative to his relationship to the principal:
* * *
* * *
'* * * that the said EDWARD PAUL BROOKS not then and there standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister by consanguinity or affinity to the said LARRY VINCENT GYSIN * * *'.
Upon this appeal, the appellant urges only one point of error in seeking a reversal of his conviction, to wit: that the State failed to prove that he was in fact '* * * not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender * * * '. The State contends that this is a negative averment and it is not required to prove such as a prima facie case. See: State v. Miller, 182 Mo. 370, 81 S.W. 867; 153 A.L.R. pages 1250 and 1252 and cases cited therein. But, even if it is required to prove such, it met same by the evidence in this case which established that the appellant first met the principal several years prior to the crime in question. We concur with the State that it is not incumbent upon it to prove negative averments if, in fact, that is what the statute created. However, because of the peculiar wording of the statute involved, it appears that the lack of relationship between the party charged as an accessory after the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruiz v. State
...Fla. 123, 33 So. 849 (1903); (2) the absence of the statutory familial relationship between the defendant and the felon; Brooks v. State, 168 So.2d 785 (Fla.3d DCA 1964), cert. denied, 177 So.2d 474 (Fla.1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 1015, 86 S.Ct. 627, 15 L.Ed.2d 529 (1966); and (3) aid to......
-
Folk v. State
...name. See 37 C.J.S. Forgery § 80 a; Annotation at 49 A.L.R.2d 852 'Forgery Use of fictitious or assumed name'. Cf. Brooks v. State, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 785. In Green v. State, Fla.1955, 76 So.2d 645, 49 A.L.R.2d 847, the Court held that the use of a fictitious name in endorsing a cheque......
-
Carrillo v. State, 84-198
...facie case, the material elements of the crime must be set forth in the information and must be proven by the state. Brooks v. State, 168 So.2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); State v. Taylor, 283 So.2d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA In the case sub judice, the state failed to allege the absence of the statutor......
-
Brooks v. State., 34002
...474 BROOKS v. STATE. No. 34002. Supreme Court of Florida. June 1965. Rehearing Denied July 27, 1965. Certiorari denied without opinion. 168 So.2d 785. ...