Weinert v. State
| Decision Date | 26 March 1895 |
| Citation | 17 So. 570,35 Fla. 229 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | WEINERT v. STATE. |
Error to circuit court, Walton county; William D. Barnes, Judge.
Charles Weinert, having been convicted of selling intoxicating liquor unlawfully, brings error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
In the trial under an information or indictment charging the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors, while it is not generally necessary to prove the exact date or dates alleged, yet it is necessary and material, in all such cases, for the state to prove that the offense charged was committed at some time within the limited statutory period of two years next prior to the finding of the indictment or filing of the information, as the case may be; and, if such proof is not made, a conviction cannot be sustained.
COUNSEL J. J. Sullivan, for plaintiff in error.
William B. Lamar, Atty Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error, upon information filed, was tried and convicted of the misdemeanor of selling intoxicating liquors at the fall term, 1894, of the circuit court of Walton county, and sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and costs, and seeks a reversal of such judgment by writ of error.
The first error assigned is that the court erred in ruling that under the provisions of chapter 4152, Laws, approved June 2 1893, the burden of proof was upon the defendant in such cases where it was shown that he had taken out a United States revenue license to engage in the business of selling spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors. The statute referred to seems to provide that the holding, owning, or purchase of a United States revenue license to sell spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors by any one shall be prima facie evidence that such person is engaged in such business; and that the production of such federal license, or an authenticated copy thereof, to a grand jury, should authorize them to indict for the conduct of such business in counties where its conduct was prohibited by law; and that proof of the holding, owning or purchase of such federal license, by the introduction of the original or a duly-authenticated copy thereof, should be sufficient evidence, without explanation, upon which to convict.
The record shows that at the trial the state's attorney requested an adjournment of the case for one day, to enable him to procure an authenticated copy of a United States revenue license for the sale of malt liquors that had been obtained by the defendant, whereupon the defendant admitted that he had such a license, indorsing such admission and his plea of not guilty, together, on the information filed. Thereupon the state's attorney read the said statute (Laws 1893, c. 4152), and asked a judgment of conviction against the defendant unless he explained or removed the statutory presumption arising from the holding of such federal license. The court thereupon ruled 'that the burden of proof be upon the defendant, but that it would be fair for the state to be required to prove, and the state was required to prove, that it was intoxicating liquor that the defendant was charged with selling.' This ruling the defendant excepted to, and assigns as error. After this ruling the state introduced various witnesses, who proved not only the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunter v. State
...as to the allegation and proof of the time of the commission of an offense. Alexander v. State, 40 Fla. 213, 23 So. 536; Weinert v. State, 35 Fla. 229, 17 So. 570; Warrace v. State, 27 Fla. 362, 8 So. Chandler v. State, 25 Fla. 728, 6 So. 768; Straughter v. State, 83 Fla. 683, 92 So. 569; T......
-
Smith v. State
...motion is denied by the trial court and reversed on appeal), the appropriate remedy is a new trial, not discharge. See Weinert v. State , 35 Fla. 229, 17 So. 570 (1895) : Warrace v. State , 27 Fla. 362, 8 So. 748 (1891) ; McCoy v. State , 17 Fla. 193 (Fla. 1879). It would be difficult to re......
- State v. Snyder
-
State v. King
...at 328.8 154 Fla. 730, 19 So.2d 106 (1944).9 19 So.2d at 107--108.10 101 So.2d 373 (Fla.1958).11 Id. at 375. See also Weinert v. State, 35 Fla. 229, 17 So. 570 (1895); Warrace v. State, 27 Fla. 362, 8 So. 748 (1891); Nelson v. State, 17 Fla. 195 (1879).12 135 Fla. 361, 185 So. 435 (1938).13......