Brunson v. State
| Decision Date | 19 November 1915 |
| Citation | 70 Fla. 387,70 So. 390 |
| Parties | BRUNSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Dade County; J. L. Billingsley Judge.
James Brunson was convicted of an attempt to bribe an officer, and brings error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
An information based upon section 3476 of the General Statutes of Florida, charging the defendant with an attempt to bribe a deputy sheriff of Dade county to permit the defendant 'to sell liquors unlawfully in Dade county, Florida, without interference from' such officer, is fatally defective, in that it fails to allege that the defendant had attempted to bribe an official to permit the defendant to sell 'spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors in any county or precinct which has voted against the sale of such liquors under the provisions of article 19 of the Constitution of the state of Florida,' without interference from such officer.
An indictment or information for bribery or attempted bribery must allege that something of value was given, promised, or received, though it is not necessary to insert a description of the thing offered; all that is essential being an allegation that it was of value. An allegation that 'a certain gift or gratuity, to wit, money,' was offered without alleging that the money was of value, is insufficient.
While it is the declared policy of the Legislature, as well as of this court, to uphold indictments and informations, whenever there has been a substantial compliance therein with the statutory requirements, this relates to matters of form, and not of substance.
COUNSEL Price & Eyles, of Miami, and P. L. Gaskins, of Jacksonville, for appellant.
T. F. West, Atty. Gen., and Glenn Terrell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the state.
An information was filed in the criminal court of record for Dade county against James Brunson, which omitting the caption, reads as follows:
'In the name and by the authority of the state of Florida:
The affidavit in the usual form of the county solictor is appended thereto. The defendant unsuccessfully attacked this information by a motion to quash the same and thereupon filed his plea of not guilty. A trial was had before a jury, which resulted in the conviction of the defendant, and he was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for a period of two years in the state prison. After such conviction the defendant again questioned the sufficiency of the information by filing a motion in arrest of judgment, which was overruled. From this conviction and sentence the defendant seeks relief here.
The first assignment is based upon the overruling of the motion to quash the information, which is argued together with the tenth assignment, which questions the overruling of the motion in arrest of judgment. The motion to quash the information consists of 11 grounds, but we deem it unnecessary to set them forth. It is sufficient to say that they point out several defects and omissions alleged to exist in the information, which it is claimed vitiate the same. We shall treat such of these grounds as seem to be advisable. The information is founded upon section 3476 of the General Statutes of Florida, which reads as follows:
'Whoever corruptly gives, offers or promises to any executive, legislative or judicial officer, after his election or appointment, either before or after he is qualified, or has taken his seat, any gift or gratuity whatever, with intent to influence his act, vote, opinion, decision or judgment on any matter, question, cause or proceeding which may be then pending, or which may by law come or be brought before him in his official capacity, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding five years, or in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding three thousand dollars.'
We had occasion to consider this statute in Tillman v. State, 58 Fla. 113, 50 So. 675, 138 Am. St. Rep. 100, 19 Ann. Cas. 91, which is cited and relied upon by the plaintiff in error as well as by the defendant in error. It is undoubtedly true, as we held therein, following prior decisions which are therein cited, that:
'It is the declared policy of the Legislature, as well as of this court, to uphold indictments and informations whenever there has been a substantial compliance with the statutory requirements therein.'
But it is clearly recognized that there must be a substantial compliance with the requirements of the statute upon which the information is based. We gave the substance of the two grounds of the information in the cited case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bogdanoff
...Joyce on Indictments, § 56; State v. Clay, 100 Mo. 571, 582, 13 S. W. 827; State v. Corson, supra; Noles v. State, supra; Brunson v. State, 70 Fla. 387, 70 So. 390, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 312;People v. Clark, 256 Ill. 14, 99 N. E. 866, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 214; and cases heretofore cited. Under this ......
-
Nell v. State
...we must say that our Supreme Court has accepted weaker arguments than this as defenses to the charge of bribery. In Brunson v. State, 1915, 70 Fla. 387, 70 So. 390, a conviction was reversed because the defendant had been charged with bribing someone to permit him to 'sell liquors unlawfull......
-
Nell v. State
...which purportedly conflicts with the decisions of this Court in Streeter v. State, 89 Fla. 400, 104 So. 858 (1925), Brunson v. State, 70 Fla. 387, 70 So. 390 (1915), Colson v. State, 71 Fla. 267, 71 So. 277 (1916), and Raines v. State, 65 So.2d 558 (Fla.1953). We have considered the cases c......
-
Zalla v. State
...prizes are illegal; that a promise to take out a lottery ticket could not be anything of value. Appellant relies upon Brunson v. State, 70 Fla. 387, 70 So. 390, 392, wherein it was held that an information for bribery 'must allege that something of value was given, promised, or received, th......