Roddenberry v. State
| Citation | 152 Fla. 197,11 So.2d 582 |
| Parties | RODDENBERRY v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 26 May 1942 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal Dismissed Dec. 14, 1942.
See 63 S.Ct. 266 87 L.Ed.----.
Appeal from Circuit Court, DeSoto County; George W Whitehurst, judge.
Bell & Bell, of Miami, for appellant.
J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., Millard B. Conklin, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Woodrow M. Melvin, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
There are four phases of the challenge to the validity of the judgment of conviction against the appellant, William Roddenberry, for killing a person by driving an automobile while intoxicated. One of them concerns the constitutionality of the act denouncing the offense of which he was found guilty; one, the adequacy of the second count of the information to allege the crime; one, the sufficiency of the evidence to justify a verdict against him; and, one, the propriety of the court's charge to the jury.
It is the position of the appellant that Chapter 11809, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1927, was not passed in accordance with the provisions of section sixteen of Article III of the Constitution, which states that 'Each law * * * shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, which subject shall be briefly expressed in the title * * *.' Chapter 11809 supra, was entitled 'An act to amend section 5563 of the Revised General Statutes of Florida relating to intoxicated persons operating automobiles and to provide for penalties for a violation of said section as amended.' The amended act simply prohibited the driving of an automobile in the State of Florida by a person at the time intoxicated and provided that any one found guilty of its violation should be punished 'as for a misdemeanor.' Appellant insists that the declaration in the amending act that the killing of a person by the operation of an automobile by another while intoxicated should be punished 'by existing law relating to manslaughter' was not matter properly connected with the title which referred only to a law condemning the infraction as a misdemeanor. He goes even further and contends that in this manner manslaughter as defined in the statutes and at common law is modified.
It has long been settled law that titles to acts of the Legislature must not be misleading or so constructed as to 'avert inquiry' as to the provisions contained in them. State v. Burns, 38 Fla. 367, 21 So. 290. We are unable to agree with the appellant that the act under scrutiny has in anywise violated this rule. A casual examination of the history of legislation to punish intoxicated drivers who cause injury to persons and property discloses that the titles of the original act, Chapter 6882, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1915 (Section 5563, R.G.S., supra), Chapter 9269, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1923 and Chapter 11809, supra, upon which the present prosecution is based, are substantially the same in their reference to the operation of motor vehicles by intoxicated persons and to penalties for their violation. Thus, for a quarter of a century there has been law upon the statute books providing punishment of those who endanger the lives and property of others by operating automobiles while intoxicated. The act presently in force, it is true, made the punishment more severe and described the offense of killing a person by a car under the control of a drunken driver as manslaughter.
It is evidently the reasoning of the appellant that the title of the act was calculated to mislead because there was no reference in it to the existing law defining other kinds of manslaughter and providing punishment. With this contention we are not sympathetic. It cannot be successfully argued that one reading the caption would not have been placed on notice that the driving of an automobile by a person intoxicated was forbidden and that a penalty for such misdeed was prescribed. It is difficult to see how he could have been misled because the section with reference to other forms of manslaughter was not mentioned. Manslaughter under the common law was defined as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice either expressed or implied (Wharton's Criminal Law, Volume 1, Section 422), and the general statutes in this state on the subject, Comp.Gen.Laws 1927, § 7141, describe the offense as 'The killing of a human being by the act, procurement or culpable negligence of another, in cases where such killing shall not be justifiable or excusable homicide nor murder * * *.' There are many statutes prescribing that unlawful death in particular circumstances is manslaughter. Applied to the acts which we are interpreting and bearing in mind the common law and statutory definitions of the offense, it is apparent to us that the reader was placed on notice not only that the operation of an automobile was an unlawful act but also that death resulting therefrom would constitute manslaughter and that the penalty for that offense would be imposed.
It certainly cannot be said that the bill was intended to cover 'disassociated objects of legislative effort' which has been announced as the test of 'duplicity of subject.' State ex rel. v. Thompson, 120 Fla 860, 163 So. 270, 283. We think that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wadsworth v. State, 596
...guilty of manslaughter, and on conviction be punished as provided by existing law relating to manslaughter.' In Roddenberry v. State, 1942, 152 Fla. 197, 11 So.2d 582, the Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Thomas, said of this 'The primary offense denounced by the statute is the o......
-
State v. Hubbard
...at the time he took control of the car and proceeded to operate it while not in possession of his faculties." Roddenberry v. State, 152 Fla. 197, 202 11 So.2d 582, 585 (1942).5 As to a negligence element, we explicitly stated that "there is no burden upon the state to prove that at the time......
-
Baker v. State
...operation of a vehicle by the defendant; and (3) the defendant was intoxicated at the time he operated the vehicle. Roddenberry v. State, 152 Fla. 197, 11 So.2d 582 (1942); Cannon v. State, 91 Fla. 214, 107 So. 360 Appellant concedes that neither specific intent nor causal connection betwee......
-
Jackson v. State
...Hopper v. State, Fla., 54 So.2d 165; Taylor v. State, Fla., 46 So.2d 725; Touchton v. State, 154 Fla. 547, 18 So.2d 752; Roddenberry v. State, 152 Fla. 197, 11 So.2d 582, appeal dismissed 317 U.S. 600, 63 S.Ct. 266, 87 L.Ed. 490, rehearing denied 317 U.S. 713, 63 S.Ct. 440, 87 L.Ed. 568; St......