RICHARD EVANS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Richard Evans was charged with keeping a house of ill fame for prostitution and lewdness in Escambia County. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his conviction and awarded a new trial because the state failed to present evidence proving the offense occurred in Escambia County, despite the information charging that venue.
The conviction must be reversed because the state failed to present evidence proving the venue allegation. While it is necessary to state the county where the offense was committed in an information to give jurisdiction, the proof at trial must actually sustain that allegation, and here there was an entire want of proof regarding venue.
“It is not only necessary to state the county or place in which the offence was committed to give jurisdiction, but the proof must sustain the allegation.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that venue must be both alleged and proven, not merely stated in the charging document
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEvans was charged by information with keeping a house of ill fame for purposes of prostitution and lewdness in Escambia County. At trial, the only evi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
delivered the opinion of the couxt.
This was 'an. information in similar form for the same offence, “keeping a house of ill-fame for the purposes ofi prostitution and lewdness,” and presented in like manner to the Circuit Court of Escambia county, as the one passed upon at this term of this court in the case of Melissa King vs. The State. The assignments of error are the same, the same questions are raised in both, and they were argued together. The settlement of the questions involved m • the other case determines this.
The only difference arises in the strength and .character of the evidence taken upon the trial.
In this case, as in the other, a motion for a new trial was denied by the court, one of the grounds óf such motion being “that the verdict was not supported! by the evidence,” and the counsel for the defendant insists that .there is no proof of the place where the offence was committed. *55The only evidence found in the bill of exceptions as to the venue is in the testimony of Charles Grinton. He says “the defendant has lived within two years previous to the last term of this court at the wharf known as Commen-dencia Street Wharf." The information charges that the offence was committed in Escambia county, but there is no evidence to show that fact. There is an entire want of proof- to sustain the allegation in this respect. It is not only necessary to state the county or place m which 'the offence was committed to give jurisdiction, but the proof must sustain the allegation. Green vs. State, 41 Ala., 419; Spaight vs. State, 29 Ib., 32; Seavy vs. State, 4 Tex., 450; Snyder vs. State, 5 Ind., 194; Gordon vs. State, 4 Mo., 375.
Judgment reversed and new trial awarded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lowman v. State, 80 Fla. 18 (Fla. 1920)…will be insufficient. Warrace v. State, 27 Fla. 362, 8 South. Rep. 748; McKinnie v. State, 44 Fla. 143, 32 South. Rep. 786; Smith v. State, 42 Fla. 236, 27 South. Rep. 868; Cook v. State, 20 Fla. 802; Robinson v. State, 20 Fla. 804; Evans v. State, 17 Fla. 192; McCoy v. State, 17 Fla. 193. Venue need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence raises a violent presumption that the offense was committed within the county, or if the evidence refers to localities and landmarks at or near t…
-
State v. Theron Black, 385 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1980)…ecessary part of an indictment which must be sustained by affirmative proof at trial. Rimes v. State, supra; McKinnie v. State, 44 Fla. 143, 32 So. 786 (1902); Robinson v. State, 20 Fla. 804 (1884); Cook v. State, 20 Fla. 802 (1884); Evans v. State, 17 Fla. 192 (1879). This well established principle is reflected in rule 3.140(d)(3), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure: Time and Place. Each count of an indictment or information upon which the defendant is to be tried shall contain allegations stating as d…
-
Andrews v. State, 21 Fla. 598 (Fla. 1885)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence