Wilson v. State
| Decision Date | 24 October 1905 |
| Citation | 50 Fla. 164,39 So. 471 |
| Parties | WILSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; Joseph B. Wall, Judge.
Paul Wilson was convicted of crime, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
The legal presumption is that the Legislature did not intend to keep really contradictory enactments in the statute book, or to effect so important a measure as the repeal of a law without expressing an intention to do so. An interpretation leading to such a result should not be adopted, unless it be inevitable.
While it is necessary, under section 2396, Rev. St. 1892, to allege and prove a different state of facts in order to justify a conviction where the female involved is over the age of 10 years than where such female is under that age, yet in either case the crime denounced is rape.
Section 2598, Rev. St. 1892, chapter 4965, p. 111, Laws 1901, denounces and punishes the crime of sexual intercourse with an unmarried female under 18 years, under circumstances that do not make the act rape, and the female involved here means the unmarried female between 10 years and 18 years.
Section 2396, Rev. St. 1892, is not repealed by section 2598, Rev St. 1892, chapter 4965, p. 111, Laws 1901.
COUNSEL Craig Phillips, for plaintiff in error.
W. H Ellis, Atty. Gen., and H. S. Phillips, State Atty., for the State.
In this case the plaintiff in error, Paul Wilson (hereinafter called the defendant), was indicted for rape by the grand jury of Hillsborough county at the fall term, 1905, of the circuit court. The charging part of the indictment is as follows 'In and upon one Pocahuntas Whitfield, a female child under the age of ten years, an assault did make, and her the said Pocahuntas Whitfield then and there did unlawfully and carnally know and abuse, contrary to the statutes,' etc. The defendant demurred to the indictment on the following grounds:
This demurrer was overruled by the court, to which ruling the defendant excepted.
The defendant pleaded not guilty and was tried and convicted by a jury. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for life.
Only one assignment of error is argued and insisted upon, namely, 'that the court erred in overruling the demurrer of the defendant to the indictment filed in this cause.'
Both grounds of the demurrer, as well as the argument made here, present the single question for our consideration, whether section 2396, Rev. St. 1892, under which the defendant was prosecuted in the court below, was repealed by section 2598, Rev. St. 1892, chapter 4965, p. 111, Laws 1901. Section 2396 is as follows:
Section 2598 is as follows:
Chapter 4965, p. 111, Laws 1901, is entitled 'An act to amend section 2598 of the Revised Statutes of Florida, the same being entitled carnal intercourse with unmarried female under the age of sixteen years.' Section 1 raises the age of the female referred to from 16 years to 18 years and increases the degree of punishment. Section 2 repeals all laws inconsistent with this act.
It is contended that section 2598, Rev. St. 1892, as amended, repealed section 2396, Rev. St. 1892, by implication. This contention would lead to the conclusion that it was the intention of the Legislature to place in juxtaposition in the Revised Statutes two sections on the same subject, one of which necessarily destroys the other. We cannot see it that way. The legal presumption is that the Legislature did not intend to keep really contradictory enactments in the statute book, or effect so important a measure as the repeal of a law without expressing an intent to do so. An interpretation leading to such a result should not be adopted unless it be inevitable. State ex rel. Ellis, Attorney General, v. Givens (Fla.) 37 So. 308. Our proper course is to search out and follow the true intent of the Legislature, and to adopt that sense which harmonizes best with the context and promotes the apparent policy and objects of the Legislature. Lewis' Sutherland Stat. Construction, § 363.
There is no repugnancy, inconsistency, or conflict between sections 2396 and 2598 as amended. They denounce and punish separate and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson Lumber Co. v. Walton County
... ... Rehearing ... Denied April 17, 1928 ... En ... Proceeding ... by Walton County against the State, for the validation of ... bonds in which certain parties intervened. From a final ... decree validating the bonds, the Jackson Lumber Company and ... an extraterritorial operation.' 36 Cyc. 1135, citing ... among other cases, Wilson v. State, 50 Fla. 164, 39 ... So. 471. The contention that this feature of the act is an ... unconstitutional regulation by special act of the ... ...
-
Khianthalat v. State
...statute that made it a misdemeanor to have "carnal intercourse" with any unmarried female under the age of sixteen. See Wilson v. State, 50 Fla. 164, 39 So. 471 (1905). In Wilson, the court addressed the effect of the new statute on the provision in the existing rape statute that dealt with......
-
Russell v. State
... ... established by showing that the defendant had carnal ... knowledge of the child, and that she was under 10 years of ... age. In the latter case the element of force or consent of ... the child is immaterial. See Schang v. State, 43 ... Fla. 561, 31 So. 346; Wilson v. State, 50 Fla. 164, ... 39 So. 471. The indictment in this case, it will be seen, ... charges the offense of rape under that phase of the crime ... where the act is committed upon a child 10 years of age or ... more, and where the elements of force and consent are ... material. There is ... ...
-
Khianthalat v. State, 2D05-2592.
...statute that made it a misdemeanor to have "carnal intercourse" with any unmarried female under the age of sixteen.2 See Wilson v. State, 50 Fla. 164, 39 So. 471 (1905). In Wilson, the court addressed the effect of the new statute on the provision in the existing rape statute that dealt wit......