State v. Houghtaling, 34363
| Decision Date | 01 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 34363,34363 |
| Citation | 181 So.2d 636 |
| Parties | Blue Sky L. Rep. P 70,694 The STATE of Florida, Petitioner and Cross Respondent, v. Francis S. HOUGHTALING, Lawrence M. Ripley, Nestor E. Houghtaling, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Arden Siegendorf, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard E. Gerstein, State's Atty. and Joseph Durant, Asst State's Atty., for petitioner and cross-respondent.
Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defendant and Phillip A. Hubbart, Asst. Public Defender, for respondents and cross-petitioner.
Respondents were informed against under two counts: (1) for allegedly violating F.S. Sec. 517.07, F.S.A., which forbids the sale of certain securities which have not been registered with the Florida Public Securities Commission; and (2) for allegedly violating Sec. 517.12, which forbids one who is not registered as a dealer or salesman with the commission to engage in the business of selling securities. On motion of the respondents, the trial court quashed the information, on authority of State v. Smith, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 889, which held that scienter was a necessary element in prosecutions under Sec. 517.07.
On appeal, the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in its opinion and decision, reported at 173 So.2d 748, Fla.App.1965, reluctantly followed the authority of the Smith case, supra, in affirming as to Count One. However, the court reversed as to Count Two, reasoning as follows: (1) that the Smith case specifically referred only to Sec. 517.07 and not to Sec. 517.12; (2) that the rule of the Smith case should not be extended to include Sec. 517.12 for reasons to be discussed below; and (3) that, in any event, there was no reason to read a requirement of scienter into Section 517.12, since registration as a dealer or salesman is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of the respondents.
The state petitions for certiorari only as to that portion of the district court decision that dealt with Count One of the Information. Respondents cross-petition for review of the portion dealing with Count Two. Our jurisdiction is bottomed on the certification of the district court that its decision passed upon a question of great public interest.
The authority of the Smith case, supra, aside, both parties agree that there is no question that the legislature had the power to have dispensed with the requirement of scienter in the enactment of Chapter 517 if it so desired. The question then is simply that of finding the legislative intent.
Respondents advance serveral grounds of varying cogency for inferring a legislative intent to require a showing of scienter in prosecutions under Chapter 517. Nevertheless, these reasons, taken together, are not sufficient to overcome the contrary inference that arises from the legislative history of the statute itself. As originally enacted, Sec. 17, Ch. 14899, Laws of Florida, 1931, provided:
However, Ch. 17253, Laws of Florida, 1935, which constituted a general revision of the statute, deleted the so-called good-faith provision from the quoted penalty section. Contrary to respondents' suggestion that the provision was deleted as mere surplusage, we are compelled to find a legislative intent to eliminate the requirement of scienter. Moreover, stemming as it does from the penalty section of the statute, this inferred legislative intent applies equally to both sections of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
FIRST FEDERAL S & L ASS'N v. MORTGAGE CORP., ETC., Civ. A. No. 75-M-2317.
...respective securities regulation provisions. See Smallwood v. Pearl Brewing Company, 5 Cir. 1974, 489 F.2d 579, 606; State v. Houghtaling, 181 So.2d 636 (Fla.1965). Though it would appear that Florida has not entirely abandoned the requirement of a showing of culpability, Sparks v. State, 2......
-
State v. Oxx, 81-990
...criminal statutes have been upheld constitutionally and interpreted to not require intent as an element. See, e.g., State v. Houghtaling, 181 So.2d 636 (Fla.1965) (section 517.07 prohibiting the sale of unregistered securities and section 517.12 prohibiting selling securities without being ......
-
Zabolotny v. Sec'y, Case No. 8:10-cv-1679-T-17TGW
...omitted). 9.Exhibit D: Statement of Particulars as to Count 1 in case 52-2003-CF-11869-(Dec. 4, 2006). 10. State v. Houghtaling, 181 So. 2d 636 (Fla....
-
Jones (Gordon, Laura) v. Childers (John H.), Talent Services, Inc.
...violations of Chapter 517 constitute per se felonies for which there is no intent or scienter requirement. See State v. Houghtaling, 181 So.2d 636 (Fla.1965). We note also that violations of Chapter 517 may constitute predicate acts within the meaning of Florida's Civil Remedies for Crimina......
-
Criminal enforcement of Florida's securities laws.
...requirement that the actor be aware of the facts making his conduct criminal. (25) With regard to securities fraud, State v. Houghtaling, 181 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 1965), can be read to support the proposition that the legislature did just what is described in the above-quoted passage when it re......