E. E. WOODSON, 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.
E.E. Woodson was convicted of adultery under a Florida statute requiring proof of living together in an open state of adultery during a specified period. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that a single act of intercourse outside the charged timeframe cannot support a conviction for the substantive offense of adultery committed during the specified period.
The court held that a single act of intercourse anterior to the charged period is not admissible to convict of the substantive offense of adultery committed between the specified dates. The evidence was insufficient to support the verdict because there was no evidence of living together in an open state of adultery within the limited period charged.
“the single act of intercourse between the defendant and Mrs. English, testified to by one witness, anterior to such time, is not admissible to convict of a substantive offense committed between such periods”
Establishes the core holding that prior acts of intercourse cannot support conviction for adultery during a specified later timeframe
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWoodson, a widower, was charged with living in an open state of adultery with Alich English, a married woman, between May 10-20, 1911, in Dade County.…
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 Adultery cases and more on FLexlaw
Parkhill, J.
— The plaintiff in error was convicted, in the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County, upon an information charging that he “on the 10th day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eleven, in the county and State aforesaid. Being then and there a widower, and one Alich English, being then and there a married woman, having a husband living, to-wit: one B. T. English, late of the county of Dade aforesaid, on the 10th day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eleven, and thence until the 20th day of May, A. D. 1911, with force and arms at and in the county of Dade aforesaid, did live together in an open state of adultery, contrary, etc.”
From the sentence and judgment in said case he sues out writ of error. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty. Although no attack is made on the information, we deem it well to say, in order that it may not serve as a precedent or form to be followed, while it sufficiently appears from the alie gations that the defendant was á widower and Alice English was a married woman on the 10th day of May, 1911, the information does not allege they continued so to be until the 20th day of May, 1911, which time they are charged as having lived in an open state of adultery. Brevaldo v. State, 21 Fla. 789. We see no reason for placing a period after the word “aforesaid” and then making a new sentence and commencing the same with a capital “B” where the information alleges, “Being then and there a widow,” etc. Passing these matters by, however, we think the evidence insufficient to support the verdict.
The information charges that, between the 10th, and 20th, days of May, 1911, the defendant and Alice English did live together in an open state of adultery. There was no evidence of a living in an open state of adultery within the limited period charged, and the single act of intercourse between the defendant and Mrs. English, testified to by one witness, anterior to such time, is not admissible to convict of a substantive offense committed between such periods. The judgment is reversed.
Taylor and Hocker, 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
-
Whitfield v. State, 85 Fla. 142 (Fla. 1923)…ugust. ’ ’ The pleader could have charged that the offense was committed between certain dates, but he saw fit to limit the period to one day. Under the rule laid' down in the case of Brevaldo v. State, 21 Fla. 789, and affirmed in Woodson v. State, 62 Fla. 106, 57 South. Rep. 174, the testimony as to acts anterior or subsequent to such time was inadmissible to convict the defendant of a substantive offense outside of the period charged in the indictment. This question is fully discussed ,in the Brevaldo…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Brevaldo v. State, 21 Fla. 789 (Fla. 1886)