TULLIDGE
v.
HOLLINGSWORTH
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 court reversed a prostitution conviction obtained through a bench trial, holding that prostitution is a crime involving moral turpitude under the Hollingsworth test and therefore guarantees a constitutional right to jury trial under both the Federal and Florida Constitutions.
The court held that prostitution is an offense involving moral turpitude and therefore guarantees a Federal and Florida Constitutional right to jury trial. The trial court erred in conducting a bench trial without the appellant's consent.
[1] A constitutional right to a jury trial exists for offenses that were indictable at common law, involve moral turpitude, are malum in se, or carry a maximum penalty of mor…
[2] A trial court errs in denying a defendant's request for a jury trial when the offense charged carries a constitutional right to a jury trial.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Moral turpitude involves the idea of inherent baseness, or depravity in the private social relations or duties owed by man to man or by man to society. It has also been defined as anything done contrary to justice, honesty, principle, or good morals, though it often involves the question of intent as when unintentionally committed through error of judgment when wrong was not contemplated.”
Establishes the definition of moral turpitude from Hollingsworth that the court applies to determine jury trial rights.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was charged with prostitution under Florida Statutes section 796.07(2), a misdemeanor punishable by 60 days county jail and a $500 fine.…
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 Malum In Se cases and more on FLexlaw
Before POWELL, JOHNSON, and HIGBEE, J.J.
PER CURIAM.
FINAL ORDER REVERSING TRIAL COURT
In this case, the Appellant was charged with Prostitution in violation of section 796.07(2), Florida Statutes (2011), a misdemeanor punishable by 60 days county jail and $500 fine. The trial judge denied Appellant’s request for jury trial, issued a no jail/no adjudication statement1, and over Appellant’s objection conducted a bench trial. Appellant was found guilty, and this
The State of Florida did not file an Answer Brief. We have found one appellate court opinion in Florida2 but none elsewhere dealing with the issue of whether there is a constitutional right to a jury trial in prostitution cases. The Federal3 and Florida Constitutions4, as well as Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.251 appear on their face to guarantee the right to jury trial for all criminal offenses. However, both the United States Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court recognize a class of “petty offenses” which constitutionally require a jury trial.5 These offenses are (1) crimes that were indictable at common law, (2) crimes that involve moral turpitude, (3) crimes that are malum in se, and (2) crimes that carry a maximum penalty of more than six months incarceration.
“Moral turpitude” has been defined by the Florida Supreme Court in State ex rel. Tullidge v. Hollingsworth, 146 So. 660, 661 (Fla. 1933), in the following general way: “Moral turpitude involves the idea of inherent baseness, or depravity in the private social relations or duties owed by man to man or by man to society. It has also been defined as anything done contrary to justice, honesty, principle, or good morals, though it often involves the question of intent as when unintentionally committed through error of judgment when wrong was not contemplated.”
We agree with Appellant, and think that Prostitution falls within the category of crimes involving moral turpitude. It involves baseness in human affairs and is contrary to good morals,
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to vacate the finding of guilt and to conduct a jury trial.
DONE AND ORDERED at Orlando, Florida this 19th day of July, 2013.
/S/
ROM W. POWELL Senior Judge
/S/
/S/
ANTHONY H. JOHNSON HEATHER L. HIGBEE Circuit Judge Circuit Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing order was furnished to Benjamin Wurtzel, Assistant Public Defender, 435 N. Orange Avenue, Ste. 400, Orlando, Florida 32801; Jeff Ashton, State Attorney, 415 N. Orange Avenue, Ste. 200, Orlando, Florida 32802-1673; and Honorable Martha C. Adams, 425 N. Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801, by mail, this 24th day of July, 2013.
/S/
Judicial Assistant
6 See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(a)(2)(A),(B) (West 2010); U.S. Dept. of State Foreign Affairs Manual, 9 FAM 40.21(a) N2.3-3. 7 See McLaughlin v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 35 Cal. App. 3d 1010, 111 Cal. Rptr. 353 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973) (physician made homosexual advance to undercover police officer in public restroom); Grievance Committee v. Broder, 112 Conn. 263, 152 A. 292 (1930) (Lawyer disbarred for conviction of criminal Adultery); Brun v. Lazzell, 172 Md. 314, 191 A. 240 (1937)(dentist’s license revoked for conviction for Indecent Exposure).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hollingsworth, 108 Fla. 607 (Fla. 1933)
- Whirley v. State, 450 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1984)
- Reed v. State, 470 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. 1985)