Shields v. State
| Decision Date | 29 November 1919 |
| Citation | 78 Fla. 524,83 So. 391 |
| Parties | SHIELDS v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Wakulla County; E. C. Love, Judge.
W. R Shields was convicted of statutory rape, and he brings error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
Where an indictment is expressly and in terms predicated upon a statute which was enacted after the offense charged is alleged in the indictment and shown by the evidence to have been committed, a judgment of conviction under the indictment will be reversed, even though the indictment and the evidence may show elements of an offense defined by a statute that was in force when the act is shown to have been committed, which law was subsequently repealed by the statute under which the indictment was found.
Where an indictment for a felony is expressly brought under a statute that was not in force at the time the alleged offense was committed, a defendant is entitled to all the rights afforded by law in defense of the penalties sought to be imposed by the inapplicable statute.
COUNSEL W. C. Hodges, of Tallahassee, for plaintiff in error.
Van C Swearingen, Atty. Gen., and D. Stuart Gillis, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The indictment herein charges that----
'W R. Shields, a male person, late of the county of Wakulla aforesaid, in the circuit and state aforesaid, laborer, on the fifteenth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eighteen, with force and arms at and in the county of Wakulla aforesaid did then and there unlawfully have carnal intercourse with one Annie Blye Cooper, she the said Annie Blye Cooper being then and there an unmarried female person of previous chaste character and was then and there of less than the age of eighteen years, to wit, of the age of fourteen years, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Florida.'
Writ of error was taken to a judgment of conviction under the charge, and it is argued that the verdict is contrary to the law under the evidence.
It is assumed that on July 15, 1918, when the offense is alleged and shown to have been committed, the following statute was in force:
'Whoever has carnal intercourse with any unmarried female who is, at the time of such intercourse, under the age of eighteen years, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary not more than ten years, or by fine not exceeding two thousand dollars.' Section 3521, Gen. Stats. 1906, Compiled Laws 1914.
This assumption is indulged in for the reason that it is conceded that chapter 6974, Acts of 1915, purporting to amend section 3521, General Statutes, is invalid because of a fatally defective title; the subject of the act not being in any way expressed in the title as is required by section 16, art. 3, of the state Constitution.
Subsequently to the date on which the offense is alleged and shown to have been committed, the following statute became effective on November 29, 1918:
'Chapter 7732 (No. 7).
'An act to prohibit unlawful carnal intercourse with an unmarried female of previous chaste character under the age of eighteen years, and to provide penalty for the punishment of such offense.
'Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Florida:
'Passed by Legislature Session 1917 and vetoed by the Governor.
'Reconsidered by Special Session 1918.
'Passed by House of Representatives over Governor's veto November 27, 1918.
'Passed by Senate over Governor's veto November 29, 1918.'
Section 32 of article 3 of the Constitution of 1885 provides that----
'The repeal or amendment of any criminal statute shall not affect the prosecution or punishment of any crime...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washington v. Dowling
... ... circuit court were affirmed by the Supreme Court on the 8th ... day of December, A. D. 1923. Washington v. State, 86 ... Fla. 519, 98 So. 603 ... At the ... time of the commission of the crime for which plaintiff in ... error was convicted, as ... no uncertainty or doubt as to the meaning and effect of this ... constitutional provision. Shields v. State, 78 Fla ... 524, 83 So. 391; Reynolds v. State, 33 Fla. 301, 14 ... So. 723; Sigsbee v. State, 43 Fla. 524, 30 So. 816 ... ...
-
Norwood v. State
...act, as the offense was alleged to have been committed in July, 1919, six months after the new act became effective. The case of Shields v. State, 83 So. 391, relied upon counsel for plaintiff in error, is not in point. Shields was charged with an offense alleged to have been committed prio......
-
Lane v. State, 48355
...committed prior to the effective date of the repealing or amending law (See Raines v. State (42 Fla. 141), 28 So. 57; Shields v. State (78 Fla. 524), 83 So. 391; and Plummer v. State (83 Fla. 689), 92 So. 222). . . By virtue of the above statement this Court has jurisdiction of this direct ......
-
Woodham v. Hill
... ... the statute as a new promise, the common-law form of actions ... not having been abolished in this state, suits should be ... brought on the new promise, and not on the original debt ... Parties litigant should so formulate their pleadings and the ... ...