Lewis v. State

• Decision Date: 24 July 1963
• Docket Number: No. 2563,2563
• Citation: 155 So.2d 841
• Parties: Adam LEWIS, alias Beggie Boo, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 841

155 So.2d 841

Adam LEWIS, alias Beggie Boo, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2563.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 24, 1963.

Edward W. Starr, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Herbert P. Benn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for appellee.

LOVE, WILLIAM K., Associate Judge.

Appellant appeals from a conviction, in four counts, on an information charging his bribery of a municipal police officer. The prime allegation of error is based upon the admission of evidence over a claim of immunity under Section 932.29 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A.

The sequence of events commenced on August 19, 1960, when the County Solicitor filed Information No. 66769 (the case now under consideration) charging appellant with the bribery of Detective Eaton, a municipal police officer of the City of West Palm Beach, Florida. This information was filed at 5:58 P.M. At 9:45 P.M. on the same day, the defendant appeared before the County Solicitor of that county and police officers of Palm Beach and West Palm Beach and/or a deputy sheriff. He voluntarily related the payment of monies to William J. Eaton, the detective in question, and to one Joseph J. Barrow, an agent of the State Beverage Department. The consideration to Eaton was for the stated purpose of permitting appellant to operate a lottery without molesation. The payment to Barrow was for a like consideration. The appellant does not contend that the giving of the information at this appearance was required or that it granted to the defendant immunity.

Six days later, the appellant was subpoenaed to appear before the County Solicitor in connection with a formal investigation. He appeared with counsel who advised him not to answer questions propounded by the solicitor. The matter was carried before one of the Judges of the Criminal Court of Record where the solicitor demanded that the appellant be required to answer his examination, advising the Court that the inquiry then involved was into a charge of bribery which was separate and distinct from that charged in Information No. 66769 (the Eaton bribery). Appellant's counsel contended that the examination might subject appellant to prosecution in the Federal Court and further that the present investigation might tend to be relevant in the Eaton case or at least to some evidence in it. Upon the theory of the County Solicitor that the causes were separate and distinct, the appellant was ordered by the Court to submit to the interrogation. Thereafter, the solicitor informed against the said Joseph J. Barrow, charging him with the acceptance of bribery monies from the appellant. This latter case was designated as Case No. 66955.

At the inception of the trial in the case now under consideration, counsel for the defendant called to the Court's attention that the appellant was granted immunity in the latter or Barrow case. The State conceded that immunity had been granted in that case.

The first and chief witness for the State, Detective Eaton, was questioned as to certain statements made by joseph J. Barrow, made outside the presence of the defendant and subject to objection as hearsay. The State contended that the statements of Barrow should be admitted under the State's theory that the defendant, Adam Lewis, and Barrow were accomplices or conspirators 'in this and other crimes' and that the State was entitled to offer the out of Court declarations of the co-conspirator as admissible against the defendant as an exception to the hearsay rule. Counsel...