JEFF WHITEHEAD, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction for lewd and lascivious cohabitation, holding that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove both intercourse and dwelling together as if married. The case clarifies the elements required for this specific offense.
No, the evidence was insufficient. The court held that to convict for lewd and lascivious cohabitation, proof of both a lewd and lascivious intercourse and a dwelling together as if the conjugal relation existed is required. The evidence presented failed to establish these elements.
“to convict of the offence of lewd and lascivious cohabitation and association, denounced by section 2596, Revised Statutes, there must be proved both a lewd and lascivious intercourse, and a living or dwelling together as if the conjugal relation existed between the parties.”
Establishes the legal standard for proving lewd and lascivious cohabitation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJeff Whitehead and Alice Peterson were convicted of lewd and lascivious cohabitation. Whitehead appealed, arguing the verdict was not supported by the…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sufficiency Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Taylor, C. J.
The plaintiff in error, Jeff Whitehead, together with one Alice Peterson, was indicted, tried and convicted of the crime of lewd and lascivious cohabitation, in the Circuit Court of Holmes county, and from the sentence imposed the said Jeff Whitehead seeks relief here by writ of error. Several errors are assigned upon rulings on applications for postponement of the trial to procure the attendance of absent witnesses, but from the conclusion we have reached as to the merits of the case it becomes unnecessary. to pass upon such assignments of error. The defendant moved for new trial upon the ground, among others, that the verdict was not warranted or supported by the evidence. This motion was denied, exception duly taken, and its denial is assigned as error. By a long line of decisions here, as elsewhere, it is settled that to convict of the offence of lewd and lascivious cohabitation and association, denounced by section 2596, Revised Statutes, there must be proved both a lewd and lascivious intercourse, and a living or dwelling together as if the conjugal relation existed between the parties. Penton v. State, 42 Fla. 560, 28 South. Rep. 774; Pinson v. State, 28 Fla. 735, 9 South. Rep. 706; Thomas v. State, 39 Fla. 437, 22 South. Rep. 725; Luster v. State, 23 Fla. 339, 2 South. Rep.
690. No useful purpose can be subserved by recapitulating the proofs in the case here, but it will be sufficient to say that while it shows that the defendant, Jeff Whitehead, sometimes lived at the house of the other defendant, Alice Peterson, while several other persons also resided there, yet there is a total lack of proof to show that at any time within the statutory period of two years before the finding of the indictment there was any lewd and lascivious cohabitation or intercourse between them. For this failure in the proofs there could not properly be a conviction.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and a new trial awarded at the cost of the county of Holmes.
Hocker and Cockrell, JJ., concur. Carter, Shackleford and Whitfield, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chesebrough v. State, 255 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 1971)…their various forms in Luster v. State, 23 Fla. 339, 2 So. 690; Pinson v. State, 28 Fla. 735, 9 So. 706; Holton v. State, 28 Fla. 303, 9 So. 716; Thomas v. State, 39 Fla. 437, 22 So. 725; Penton v. State, 42 Fla. 560, 28 So. 774; Whitehead v. State, 48 Fla. 64, 37 So. 302; Faulkner v. State, 146 Fla. 769, 1 So. 2d 857; and Boles v. State, 158 Fla. 220, 27 So. 2d 293.” (p. 57) Lewdness, or open and public indecency, were offenses even at common law. The statutes throughout our country have given the term…
-
Rhodes v. State, 283 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1973)…arious forms in Luster v. State, 23 Fla. 339, 2 So. 690; Pinson v. State, 28 Fla. 735, 9 So. 706; Holton v. State, 28 Fla. 303, 9 So. 716; Thomas v. State, 39 Fla. 437, 22 So. 725; Penton v. State, 42 Fla. 560, [*357] 28 So. 774; Whitehead v. State, 48 Fla. 64, 37 So. 302; Faulkner v. State, 146 Fla. 769, 1 So. 2d 857; and Boles v. State, 158 Fla. 220, 27 So. 2d 293.” (p. 57) Chesebrough then further states: (255 So. 2d 678) “Lewdness, or open and public indecency, were offenses even at common law. The…
-
Buchanan v. State of Fla. & Nathan Mayo, 111 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)…their various forms in Luster v. State, 23 Fla. 339, 2 So. 690; Pinson v. State, 28 Fla. 735, 9 So. 706; Holton v. State, 28 Fla. 303, 9 So. 716; Thomas v. State, 39 Fla. 437, 22 So. 725; Penton v. State, 42 Fla. 560, 28 So. 774; Whitehead v. State, 48 Fla. 64, 37 So. 302; Faulkner v. State, 146 Fla. 769, 1 So. 2d 857; and Boles v. State, 158 Fla. 220, 27 So. 2d 293. The question whether the Child Molester Act created the new crime of “lewd and lascivious behavior” is not pertinent here. The crimes alleg…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pinson v. State, 28 Fla. 735 (Fla. 1891)
- Luster v. State, 23 Fla. 339 (Fla. 1887)
- Thomas v. State, 39 Fla. 437 (Fla. 1897)
- Abb Penton and Zada Edgar v. State, 42 Fla. 560 (Fla. 1900)