CURLEY PURCELL, 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.
Curley Purcell was convicted in Leon County circuit court of unlawfully selling spirituous liquors in violation of county prohibition. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that courts may take judicial notice that whiskey is an intoxicating spirituous liquor and lager beer is a malt liquor within the scope of prohibition statutes.
The conviction is affirmed. Courts may take judicial notice that whiskey is an intoxicating spirituous liquor and that lager beer is a malt liquor within the prohibition statute, making it unnecessary for the prosecution to prove these facts through testimony. The evidence of the sales themselves is therefore sufficient to sustain the conviction.
“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the doctrine of judicial notice for common alcoholic beverages, eliminating the need for evidence of intoxicating properties.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePurcell was indicted and tried in Leon County circuit court for unlawfully selling spirituous liquors in violation of prohibition established by count…
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.
Taylor, J.
The plaintiff in error was tried, convicted and sentenced in the circuit court of Leon county on an indictment charging him with an unlawful sale of spirituous liquors in said county contrary to prohibition established by an election in said county and comes here seeking a reversal of the judgment by writ of error. The only error assigned is the denial of the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the ground that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence. In support of this assignment it is contended that the proofs do not show that the whiskey sold by the defendant was a spirituous liquor or was intoxicating. It is quite true that the proofs do not show that the whiskey sold by the defendant was a spirituous liquor — but it does abundantly show that he did sell “whiskey” to two different parties on two sep arate occasions, — this being true, it was unnecessary to prove that the whiskey sold was a spirituous liquor or that it was intoxicating as the courts will take notice judicially of the meaning of the word “whiskey,” that it is an intoxicating spirituous liquor. Frese v. State, 23 Fla. 267, 2 South. Rep., 1.
The proofs further show that the defendant sold lager beer, and the courts will take judicial notice that lager beer is a malt liquor that comes within the prohibition of the statute. Netso v. State, 24 Fla., 363, 5 South. Rep. 8; Caldwell v. State, 43 Fla., 545, 30 South. Rep., 814; Nusebaumer v. State, 54 Fla., 87, 44 South. Rep., 712.
Finding no error, the judgment of the circuit court in said cause is hereby affirmed at the cost of the plaintiff in. error. Hocker and Parki-iill, J. J., concur;
Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 81 Fla. 783 (Fla. 1921)…g that such possession was not contrary to the Statute. See Baender v. Barnett, U. S. , 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 271. The courts take judicial notice that whiskey is an intoxicating liquor, the possession of which is regulated by statute. Purcell v. State, 61 Fla. 43, 55 South. Rep. [*795] 847; Nussbaumer v. State, 54 Fla. 87, 44 South. Rep. 712; Caldwell v. State, 43 Fla. 545, 30 South. Rep. 814; Frese v. State, 23 Fla. 267, 2 South. Rep. 1; Sec. 6, Chap. 7736, Acts of 1918; Wood v. Whitaker, decided this term.…
-
Jabon Smith v. State, 96 Fla. 553 (Fla. 1928)…and that it was intoxicating. It was obtained from the accused in a soft drink bottle, examined by the witnesses and pronounced to be whiskey, which is presumed to be intoxicating. See Johnson v. State, 81 Fla. 783, 89 So. R. 114; Purcell v. State, 61 Fla. 43, 55 So. R. 847. The state attorney called the county judge as a witness to prove the first conviction of the accused. The judge produced his “Criminal Record Book” and turning to a certain page testified that he found a record there of the convicti…
Authorities Cited
- Caldwell v. State, 43 Fla. 545 (Fla. 1901)
- Frese v. State, 23 Fla. 267 (Fla. 1887)
- Nussbaumer v. State, 54 Fla. 87 (Fla. 1907)
- Netso v. State, 24 Fla. 363 (Fla. 1888)