State Ex Rel. Williams v. Coleman

• Decision Date: 04 April 1938
• Citation: 180 So. 357,131 Fla. 892
• Parties: STATE ex rel. WILLIAMS v. COLEMAN, Sheriff.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

180 So. 357

131 Fla. 892

STATE ex rel. WILLIAMS v. COLEMAN, Sheriff.

Florida Supreme Court

April 4, 1938

En Banc.

Original proceeding in habeas corpus by the State, on the relation of Robert R. Williams, against D. C. Coleman, as sheriff of Dade county, Fla.

Petitioner discharged.

COUNSEL Hendricks & Hendricks, of Miami, and Davis &amp Davis, of Madison, for petitioner.

Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and Tyrus A. Norwood Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Carson & Petteway and James M. Carson, all of Miami, Lewis W Petteway, of Tallahassee, and R. R. Rhudy and Casey, Walton &amp Spain, all of Miami, as amici curiae.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

It was made to appear in this court by petition that Robert R Williams was being unlawfully detained and deprived of his liberty by D. C. Coleman, as sheriff of Dade county, Fla. This court on February 4, 1937, issued a writ of habeas corpus directed to the sheriff of Dade county, Fla., directing him to produce the body of petitioner in this court, together with the cause or causes of detention. On February 10, 1938, a return was made by the sheriff showing or making known to this court that Robert R. Williams was being held on a capias issued by the clerk of the circuit court of Dade county, Fla., charging the petitioner with the crime of conspiracy to bribe. The capias was predicated on an indictment presented by a grand jury of Dade county, Fla., and the material portion thereof is as follows:

'That on the sixteenth day of December, A. D. 1937, one Robert R. Williams, and one John W. DuBose, and one Ralph B. Ferguson, were each duly elected and acting City Commissioners of the City of Miami, Florida, a municipal corporation, and that on said sixteenth day of December, 1937, within the County of Dade and State of Florida, one Thomas E. Grady and the said Robert R. Williams, John W. DuBose and Ralph B. Ferguson did unlawfully agree, conspire and combine and confederate for the purpose of, and to the end that the said Thomas E. Grady should corruptly obtain from an officer, and officers, of the Florida Power and Light Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, for, and on behalf, and for the use and benefit of the said Robert R. Williams, John W. DuBose and Ralph B. Ferguson, the sum of One Hundred and Fifty Thousand ($150,000.00) Dollars, lawful money of the United States of America, and with the agreement and understanding that of such monies so to be obtained by the said Thomas E. Grady, as aforesaid, that he, the said Robert R. Williams, and he, the said John W. DuBose, and he, the said Ralph B. Ferguson, should each accept and receive as a gift and gratuity the sum of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars of the aforesaid monies, under an agreement and with an understanding between them, the said Thomas E. Grady, Robert R. Williams, John W. DuBose and Ralph B. Ferguson, that in a meeting of the City Commission of said City, thereafter to be held, that the votes of the said Robert R. Williams, John W. DuBose and Ralph B. Ferguson, acting as City Commissioners aforesaid, should each be given in a particular manner upon a particular side of a question and proceeding which might by law be brought before them, the said Robert R. Williams and John W. DuBose and Ralph B. Ferguson, as City Commissioners of the said City of Miami, Florida, in their several official capacities aforesaid, that is to say, that the said Robert R. Williams, John W. DuBose and Ralph B. Ferguson were to cast their respective votes for and in favor of an ordinance of the City of Miami to be by them, or one of them, proposed to abrogate and repeal that certain Ordinance No. 1066 of the City of Miami, now extant, and to fix and establish by another ordinance divers electric rates in the City of Miami. * * *'

The indictment was drafted under sections 7482 and 7541, C.G.L., which are as follows:

'7482. (5347.) Officer accepting bribe.--Every executive, legislative or judicial officer, who corruptly accepts a gift or gratuity, or a promise to make a gift, or do an act beneficial to such officer, under an agreement or with an understanding that his vote, opinion or judgment shall be given in any particular manner or upon a particular side of any question, cause or proceeding which is or may be by law brought before him, in his official capacity, or that in such capacity he shall make any particular nomination or appointment, shall forfeit his office, be forever disqualified to hold any public office, trust or appointment under the Constitution or laws of this State, and be punished by imprisonment in the State Prison not exceeding ten years, or in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars.'

'7541. (5400.) Conspiracy.--If two or more persons shall agree, conspire, combine or confederate: (1) To commit any offense; or (2) falsely or maliciously to indict another for any offense, or procure another to be charged or arrested for any offense; or (3) falsely or maliciously to prove or maintain any suit; or (4) to cheat and defraud any person of any money or property by means which are in themselves criminal; or (5) to cheat and defraud any person of any money or property by any means which, if executed, would amount to a cheat or to obtaining property by false pretenses; or (6) to commit any act injurious to the public health or public morals, or for the prevention or obstruction of justice; or (7) to interfere with or prevent the holding or conducting of any election, or making returns thereof, or to prevent the due administration of the laws, they shall be punished by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.'

It is suggested by counsel that if the indictment, supra, fails to charge a crime under the statutes of Florida, then the same could be sustained as a violation of the common law. The common law of England of a general nature in force on July 4, 1776, became the law of Florida. See section 87, C.G.L. The Legislature of Florida abrogated the common law in relation to the crime of bribery or attempted bribery as charged in the indictment by enacting certain statutes applicable thereto. This conclusion is supported by section 7126, C.G.L. The statutes of Florida so enacted as to bribery are sections 7481, 7482, 7483, 7484, 7485, 7486, 7487, 7488, and 8172, C.G.L. It is settled that if the indictment, supra, is to be sustained, it must rest upon the duly enacted statutes of Florida controlling the same, because the crime of attempted bribery or bribery at the common law has been changed by the above statutes.

Statutes in derogation of the common law and penal statutes should be strictly construed, and if there is any doubt as to their meaning, the courts should resolve such doubt in favor of the citizen. See Ex parte Amos, 93 Fla. 5, 112 So. 289; Whitehurst v. State, 105 Fla. 574, 141 So. 878; Texas Co. v. Amos, 77 Fla. 327, 81 So. 471; Ex parte Kilgore, 106 Fla. 723, 143 So. 610; Maxcy, Inc. v. Mayo, 103 Fla. 552, 139 So. 121. See, also, State ex rel. Cherry v. Davidson, 103 Fla. 954, 139 So. 177.

It is essential that the indictment here should charge a crime against the laws of Florida. It is true that a conspiracy to commit a crime is prohibited by the laws of Florida. If the above indictment fails to state a crime per se, then the conspiracy falls of its own weight. See Croft v. State, 106 Fla. 519, 143 So. 599. A pertinent summary of the indictment appearing in one of the briefs is, viz.:

'1. Williams, DuBose and Ferguson were City Commissioners of the City of Miami.

'2. They agreed, conspired, combined and confederated with Grady.

'3. The agreement and conspiracy was for the purpose, and to the end, that Grady 'should corruptly obtain' from 'an officer and officers' of ...