Gordon v. State
| Decision Date | 31 July 1923 |
| Citation | 86 Fla. 255,97 So. 428 |
| Parties | GORDON v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court of Record; Orange County; T. Picton Warlow Judge.
A. P Gordon was convicted of the second offense of the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, and he brings error.
Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
Every essential element of offense charged must be proved by best obtainable competent evidence. In a criminal prosecution every essential element of the offense charged must be proven by competent evidence, and the best evidence reasonably obtainable should be adduced.
To support indictment charging second offense, state must produce prior record of judgment of conviction. To support an indictment charging the defendant with a second offense of a like character, it is necessary for the state, in proof of the latter allegation, to produce the record of the prior judgment of conviction.
John B. Sutton, of Tampa, for plaintiff in error.
Rivers Buford, Atty. Gen., and J. B. Gaines, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error was under section 5486, Revised General Statutes 1920, convicted on an information charging the unlawful sale of 'intoxicating beverage,' it being also alleged that he had theretofore been convicted 'of the crime of unlawfully having in his possession, custody, and control intoxicating liquors.' This being a felony under the statute, the maximum penalty of imprisonment for three years in the state penitentiary was imposed.
In a criminal prosecution every essential element of the offense charged must be proven by competent evidence; and the best evidence reasonably obtainable should be adduced.
Without objection the state produced testimony of the clerk of the criminal court of record that the records of the court showed that the defendant had previously been convicted as alleged. The record was not produced, though apparently it was immediately accessible.
To support an indictment charging the defendant with a second offense of a like character, it is necessary for the state in proof of the latter allegation to produce the record of the prior judgment of conviction. Norwood v. State, 80 Fla. 613, 86 So. 506.
In a prosecution for a second offense----
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cross v. State
...then be incumbent upon the state to prove the allegations of such information just as any other original information. See Gordon v. State, 86 Fla. 255, 97 So. 428. It apparent that the answers of the defendant on his cross-examination were not the source of the prosecutor's knowledge upon w......
-
State v. King
...will suffice as a basis for the second prosecution.' See also State v. Griffie, 118 Mo. 188, 198, 23 S.W. 878, 881(2); Gordon v. State, 86 Fla. 255, 97 So. 428; Ellis v. State, 100 Fla. 27, 129 So. 106, 69 A.L.R. 783, 788, No case cited by the State involved the proof of judgments establish......
-
Ellis v. State
...114; Harris v. State, 75 Fla. 527, 78 So. 526, 527; Pensacola Lodge, etc., v. State, 74 Fla. 498, 77 So. 613, 86 So. 506; Gordon v. State, 86 Fla. 255, 97 So. 428, 429; Kauz v. State (Fla.) 124 So. 177. See, State v. Barnes, 24 Fla. 153, 4 So. 560; Demens v. Poyntz, 25 Fla. 654, 6 So. 261. ......
-
Reynolds v. State
...convicted.' The defendant further contends that under the rule announced in Norwood v. State, 80 Fla. 613, 86 So. 506, and Gordon v. State, 86 Fla. 255, 97 So. 428, the proof of defendant's previous conviction insufficient. The minute book of the criminal court of record of Polk county show......