Penton v. State
| Decision Date | 24 July 1900 |
| Citation | 42 Fla. 560,28 So. 774 |
| Parties | PENTON et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, Santa Rosa county; Evelyn C. Maxwell Judge.
Abb Penton and Zada Edgar, alias Zada Lindsay, were convicted of unlawful cohabitation, and bring error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. In order to convict of the offense of lewdly and lasciviously associating and cohabiting together, under the first clause of section 2596, Rev. St., the evidence must show a dwelling or living together by the parties as if the conjugal relation existed. A single or mere occasional acts of incontinency are insufficient to sustain the charge, the object of the statute being to prohibit the public scandal and disgrace of such living together by persons of opposite sexes who are unmarried to each other.
2. In the offense of lewd and lascivious cohabitation and association denounced by section 2596, Rev. St., there are included both lewd and lascivious intercourse, and a living or dwelling together as if the conjugal relation existed between the parties.
3. Evidence examined, and found insufficient to support the verdict.
A. G. Campbell, for plaintiffs in error.
William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for the State.
At the spring term of the circuit court of Santa Rosa county, held in March of the present year, plaintiffs in error were indicted, tried, and covicted for the offense denounced by the first clause of section 2596, Rev. St., which reads, 'If any man and woman, not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, * * * they shall be punished,' etc., and, from the sentence imposed, sued out this writ of error.
A motion for a new trial upon the ground, among others, that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, was overruled; and this ruling, among others, is assigned as error. In Luster v. State, 23 Fla. 339, 2 So. 690 this court held that to convict of the offense of lewdly and lasciviously associating and cohabiting together, under this statute, the evidence must show a dwelling or living together by the parties as if the conjugal relation existed; that a single or mere occasional acts of incontinency are insufficient to sustain the charge; and that the object of the statute is to prohibit the public scandal and disgrace of such living together by persons of opposite sexes who are unmarried to each other. This construction has been adhered to in Pinson v. State, 28 Fla. 735, 9...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rhodes v. State
...690; Pinson v. State, 28 Fla. 735, 9 So. 706; Holton v. State, 28 Fla. 303, 9 So. 716; Thomas v. State, 39 Fla. 437, 22 So. 725; Penton v. State, 42 Fla. 560, Chesebrough then further 28 So. 774; Whitehead v. State, 48 Fla. 64, 37 So. 302; Faulkner v. State, 146 Fla. 769, 1 So.2d 857; and B......
-
Laughlin v. State of Florida
...824, 85 So. 153 (1920) (both cases involving what is now § 798.01); Wildman v. State, 157 Fla. 334, 25 So.2d 808 (1946); Penton v. State, 42 Fla. 560, 28 So. 774 (1900) (cases involving respectively, § 798.02 and what is now that 3 Unlike all the other sections of chapter 798, § 798.03 does......
-
Campbell v. State, 46530
...339, 2 So. 690 (1887); Pinson v. State, 28 Fla. 735, 9 So. 706 (1891); Thomas v. State, 39 Fla. 437, 22 So. 725 (1897); Penton v. State, 42 Fla. 560, 28 So. 774 (1900); Whitehead v. State, 48 Fla. 64, 37 So. 302 (1904); Cloud v. State, 64 Fla. 237, 60 So. 180 (1912); Wildman v. State, 157 F......
-
Buchanan v. State, A-30
...Pinson v. State, 28 Fla. 735, 9 So. 706; Holton v. State, 28 Fla. 303, 9 So. 716; Thomas v. State, 39 Fla. 437, 22 So. 725; Penton v. State, 42 Fla. 560, 28 So. 774; Whitehead v. State, 48 Fla. 64, 37 So. 302; Faulkner v. State, 146 Fla. 769, 1 So.2d 857; and Boles v. State, 158 Fla. 220, 2......