Faulkner v. State

• Decision Date: 25 April 1941
• Citation: Faulkner v. State, 146 Fla. 769, 1 So.2d 857 (Fla. 1941)
• Parties: FAULKNER v. STATE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

1 So.2d 857

146 Fla. 769

FAULKNER v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court

April 25, 1941

Rehearing Denied May 15, 1941.

Appeal from Court of Record, Escambia County; R. Pope Reese judge.

R. H Merritt, of Pensacola, for appellant.

J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., and Nathan Cockerell, Asst. Atty. Gen for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, W H. Faulkner, was informed against by the County Solicitor of Escambia County, Florida, for the violation of Section 7655, C.G.L, in that on or about August 1, 1939, in Escambia County, Florida, he was a lewd, wanton and lascivious person, by then and there exposing parts of his person in the presence and view of a certain female, namely Mrs. Ozella Kent, and divers other female persons.The defendant below filed a motion to quash the information on numerous grounds and the same was denied, and upon arraignment the defendant entered a plea of not guilty; was placed upon trial, and by a jury convicted, and by the trial court sentenced to pay a fine of $250, and in default thereof that he be imprisoned by confinement at hard labor in the county jail of Escambia County for a period of six months.An appeal therefrom has been perfected to this Count and several assignments of error presented and argued for a reversal of the said judgment.

It is here contended that the lower court erred in not sustaining the motion of the appellant to quash the information under which he was informed against and convicted, because the facts supporting the charge clearly shows a violation of Section 7588, C.G.L., and not a violation of Section 7655, C.G.L.We have carefully reviewed and studied the testimony in support of the prosecution and it shows that the appellant exposed a part of his person in the presence of the female named in the information on August 1, 1939, and in the presence of other females within two years prior to the filing of the information.Such conduct clearly violates the described provisions of Section 7655, supra.We agree with counsel for appellant that Section 7588, supra, makes unlawful the alleged conduct of appellant and the facts adduced would clearly support the charge.The two offenses prohibited by Sections 7588and7655 are closely related to such an extent that when a conviction is had under Section 7588he cannot be subsequently convicted on the same set of facts made unlawful by Section 7655 and fully described in the challenged information.Consideration has been given to the authorities cited in support of this assignment.

It is next contended that a single act of exposure of the person in an indecent manner does not constitute a violation of Section 7655.The answer to this contention is that the alleged exposure occurred on August 1, 1939, in the presence of Mrs Kent, and in addition thereto the testimony discloses that an indecent...