Haile v. Bullock

• Decision Date: 21 April 1922
• Citation: 91 So. 683,83 Fla. 538
• Parties: HAILE v. BULLOCK, Judge, et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

91 So. 683

83 Fla. 538

HAILE v. BULLOCK, Judge, et al.

Florida Supreme Court

April 21, 1922

John Haile was convicted in the county court of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors, and he appealed to the circuit court, where he was again convicted, and he brings certiorari. The judgment of the county court as affirmed by the circuit court is quashed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Judgment convicting one of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors, based on statute modified and superseded, may be quashed upon certiorari. Where, upon a charge that the accused 'did unlawfully have in his possession certain intoxicating liquor,' it appears from a duly authenticated bill of exceptions, which is by statute made a part of the record, that the trial court instructed the jury as to the law under a state statute that has been modified and superseded by an act of Congress having authority in the premises, and sustained a verdict of guilty predicated upon evidence obtained by an unlawful search and seizure by officers, and there was no evidence as to essential elements of the offense charged, and a judgment of conviction is affirmed by an intermediate appellate court, such judgment and its affirmance being the result of judicial proceedings that are contrary to the essential requirements of the law and necessarily harmful to the accused, may be quashed upon writ of certiorari in appropriate proceedings duly taken for that purpose.

Relief may be had from prejudicial and erroneous judgments. While a judgment will not on certiorari be quashed for mere errors in procedure that were not fundamental or manifestly unjust in their nature or of material consequence, yet where the trial did not proceed according to essential requirements of law and material injustice results, relief may be had on certiorari.

COUNSEL

Robert E. Davis, of Gainesville, for petitioner.

Rivers Buford, Atty. Gen., J. B. Gaines, Asst. Atty. Gen., and L. N Green, Pros. Atty., of Ocala, for respondents.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

A petition filed in this court, praying for a writ of certiorari to quash a judgment, alleges that John Haile was tried in the county judge's court of Marion County upon an affidavit and warrant charging that he, in said county, on April 17, 1920, 'did unlawfully have in his possession certain intoxicating liquor, contrary to the statute,' etc.; that he was convicted and by judgment sentenced to imprisonment and to pay a fine and costs; that the judgment of conviction was on appeal affirmed by the circuit court that the conviction is erroneous and void because:

'(1) No evidence was produced at said trial to sustain the charge against the defendant, and to authorize the verdict of guilty rendered therein.

'(2) No evidence was produced proving, or tending to prove, that the liquor found in petitioner's house was alcoholic, or intoxicating.

'(3) No evidence was produced proving, or tending to prove, that the possession by the petitioner of the liquor found in his house was an unlawful possession.

'(4) The said county judge improperly charged the jury as to the law of the case, and improperly advised and charged the jury that the possession of moonshine liquor was prima facie evidence that the possession thereof was unlawful, and that such prima facie evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction, unless the petitioner could prove that his possession was lawful.

'(5) The said county judge improperly and erroneously charged the jury, as follows, to wit:

"(1) That where a person is found in the possession of what is commonly called rum or moonshine liquor this is prima facie evidence that he had such possession unlawfully, and puts the burden on the defendant to prove that his possession was unlawful. By prima facie evidence is meant evidence sufficient to convict the defendant, unless the defendant proves that his possession was lawful.

"(2) The possession of moonshine liquor by the defendant, in this case I believe, is not disputed by the defendant; then unless the defendant proves to you that his possession was lawful, that is, unless he proves to you that he obtained his possession of this liquor prior to August 7, 1919, and that he had (not exceeding four quarts) in his own private residence for the use of himself or his family, and not to be disposed of to any person in any way, or unless his proof raises a reasonable doubt in your mind of his guilt, then you should find the defendant guilty.'

'(6) It is shown by the affidavit, warrant, and the evidence contained in the bill of exceptions that the house of the petitioner was searched by officers and other persons in the nighttime without any search warrant authorizing the same, and that all evidence tending to prove that the petitioner had liquor of any kind or character was that given by the officers and other persons who searched the petitioner's home, which testimony consists of statements of what ...