Thompson v. State
| Decision Date | 28 October 1913 |
| Citation | 66 Fla. 206,63 So. 423 |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Volusia County; Bert Fish Judge.
Harrison Thompson was convicted of being a common liquor dealer, and brings error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
Section 3 of chapter 6179 of the Laws of Florida of 1911 is not violative of the provisions of section 16 of article 3 of the state Constitution; but the title to such chapter is a sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement.
Upon a prosecution for the commission of a second or subsequent offense, the state must prove the identity of the accused and the person who has sustained such prior conviction by other evidence than simply the identity of their names.
COUNSEL Murry Sams, of De Land, for plaintiff in error.
T. F West, Atty. Gen., and C. O. Andrews, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Harrison Thompson was tried and convicted of the offense of being a common liquor dealer, under section 3 of chapter 6179 of the Laws of Florida of 1911, which reads as follows:
'Whoever is convicted of selling or causing to be sold, any spirituous, vinous or malt liquors, in any county or precinct which has voted against the sale of such liquors, under the provisions of article XIX of the Constitution of the state of Florida, or whenever any person or persons, firm or association is convicted of selling or causing to be sold, or keeping for sale any spirituous, vinous or malt liquors, without his paying the license required by law, having been before convicted of the like offense, shall be deemed and adjudged to be a common liquor dealer, in violation of law, and shall be punished, upon conviction, by being fined not more than $3,000.00 or by imprisonment in the State Prison not more than five years, or by both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.'
The first assignment is based upon the overruling of the motion in arrest of judgment. This motion contains four grounds, but only the second is urged before us, which is as follows:
We had occasion to consider this section 3 in Smith v. State, 62 Fla. 91, 57 So. 348, wherein we held that 'the Legislature may make it a felony to commit the second offense of selling liquors in a county voting against the sale of liquors, even though the prior conviction was had before the passage of the statute.' While the points insisted upon in the instant case were not raised in the cited case, evidently we were not impressed with the fact that such section was unconstitutional, nor are we so impressed now, though we have read with care the brief of the defendant, wherein he strenuously contends that this error is well assigned. The title of this chapter is in the following language:
'An act to amend chapter 5690 of the Laws of the state of Florida, entitled 'An act to amend section 3556 of the General Statutes of the state of Florida, relative to the sale of liquors in counties or precincts voting against such sales,' and to amend section 3448 of the General Statutes of the state of Florida, relating to selling liquors without a license.'
It is obvious from the title that the intention of the Legislature was to amend certain existing statutes, which are specified, relating to the illegal sale of liquors. We are of the opinion, after a careful examination of the entire chapter 6179, that section 3 is not violative of the provisions of section 16 of article 3 of the state Constitution, as the defendant urges, but that the title to such chapter is a sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement. In Schiller v. State, 49 Fla. 25, 38 So. 706, we held:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hlad v. State
...and a "right to counsel" problem. The legislature has contemplated neither problem. As to the identity problem, see Thompson v. State, 66 Fla. 206, 63 So. 423 (1913); compare State v. Perrera, 443 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); see Annotations: Evidence of Identity for Purposes of Statute ......
-
State v. Brinkley
... ... name is positively required. State v. Kimbrough, 350 ... Mo. 609, 166 S.W.2d 1077; State v. Taylor, 323 Mo ... 15, 18 S.W.2d 474; State v. Garrish, 29 S.W.2d 71; ... Graham v. West Virginia, 224 U.S. 620, 56 L.Ed. 917; ... Kubik v. United States, 53 F.2d 763; Thompson v ... State, 66 Fla. 206, 63 So. 423; Morgan v ... Commonwealth, 170 Ky. 400, 186 S.W. 132; Hall v ... State, 121 Md. 577, 89 A. 111; People v ... Chadwick, 4 Cal.App. 63, 87 P. 384; State v ... Smith, 129 Iowa 709, 106 N.W. 187, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 539; ... People v. Knox, 223 ... ...
-
State v. Aime
... ... Ency. of Law, 918; State v. McGuire, ... 87 Mo. 642; People v. Riley, 75 Cal. 98, 16 ... P. 544; Files v. State, 16 Okla. Cr. 363, ... 182 P. 911. While there are cases to the contrary ( ... State v. Smith, 129 Iowa 709, 106 N.W. 187, ... 4 L.R.A. [N. S.] 539, 6 Ann. Cas. 1023; Thompson v ... State, 66 Fla. 206, 63 So. 423), we think, where the ... name is not a common one, and there is nothing to indicate ... that more than one person in the vicinity was known of the ... same name, proof of the identity of names is sufficient to ... warrant the conclusion of identity of ... ...
-
Massey v. United States
... ... 406, 69 So. 652, L.R.A. 1916C, 278; ... Delaney v. Plunkett, 146 Ga. 547, 91 S.E. 561, ... L.R.A. 1917D, 926, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 685; State v ... Phillips, 109 Miss. 22, 67 So. 651, L.R.A. 1915D, 530; ... Easley Town Council v. Pegg, 63 S.C. 98, 41 S.E. 18; ... State v. Clark, 28 N.H ... State, 36 Tex. 6-9; Mitchell v. State, 52 ... Tex.Cr.R. 37, 39, 106 S.W. 124; Brittian v. State, ... 85 Tex.Cr.R. 491, 214 S.W. 351; Thompson v. State, ... 66 Fla. 206, 209, 63 So. 423; State v. Davis, 68 ... W.Va.142, 151, 69 S.E. 639, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 501, Ann. Cas ... 1912A, 996; ... ...