WILLIAM CLOUD AND ADA STRICKLAND, PLAINTIFFS 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.
William Cloud and Ada Strickland were convicted under a Florida statute prohibiting lewd and lascivious cohabitation between unmarried persons. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient because it did not prove the essential element that the defendants associated and cohabited together as husband and wife, only that they engaged in a single act of indecent behavior.
The conviction must be reversed because the evidence was insufficient to prove an essential element of the crime. While the evidence may have shown a single lewd and lascivious act, it did not prove that the defendants associated and cohabited together as husband and wife, which is a necessary component of the statutory offense charged.
“To convict of the crime of lewd and lascivious association and cohabitation, under section 3519 of the General Statutes, there must be proved both lewd and lascivious intercourse, and a living or dwelling together as though the conjugal relation existed between the parties when that relation does not lawfully exist.”
Establishes the two essential elements required for conviction under the statute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCloud and Strickland were charged with unlawfully and lewdly cohabiting together as man and wife. The evidence showed that on one occasion, the defend…
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.
Whitfield, C. J.
The information in two .counts charges that the defendants a man and a woman and not being lawfully married to each other “did unlawfully and lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together as man and wife, and did openly and grossly cohabit together and-unlawfully and openly and grossly occupy the same room and bed, in open, lewd and public cohabitation.” A conviction was had on both counts.
The statute provides that “If any man and woman, not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, or if any man or woman mar ried or unmarried, is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, they shall be punished,” etc. Sec. 3519 Gen. Stats.
The information is obviously based upon the penalty imposed by the statute when a man and woman not being married to each other, “lewdly and lasciviously associate together;” and the information does not charge the offense of “open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior.”
To convict of the crime of lewd and lascivious association and cohabitation, under section 3519 of the General Statutes, there must be proved both lewd and lascivious intercourse, and a living or dwelling together as though the conjugal relation existed between the parties when that relation does not lawfully exist. When the evidence shows a lewd and lascivious intercourse between the parties, but does not show that they associated and cohabited together as man and wife, a conviction should not be sustained, since an essential element of the offense is not proven. Whitehead v. State 48 Fla. 64, 37 South. Rep. 302; Thomas v. State, 39 Fla. 437, 22 South. Rep. 725; Penton v. State, 42 Fla. 560, 28 South. Rep. 774; Luster v. State, 23 Fla. 339, 2 South. Rep. 690; Pinson v. State, 28 Fla. 735, 9 South. Rep. 706.
There is evidence that the defendants on one occasion undressed and went to bed together in the presence of witnesses who were in the room as visitors, and that the defendants were by the witnesses left in the bed together and alone in the house. But there is no evidence that the defendants associated or cohabited together as husband and wife. The information does not charge the offense of “open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior,” as defined by the Statute, and as the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction on the charge of “lewdly and lasciv iously associating and cohabiting together,” the judgment is reversed.
Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker^ J. J., concur. Taylor, J., absent on account of illness, concurred in the opinion as prepared.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dade Carnley v. State, 82 Fla. 282 (Fla. 1921)…This is especially true in this class of cases, where the grade of the offense depends upon the value of the property stolen. Sykes v. State, 78 Fla. 167, 82 South. Rep. [*284] 778; Franklin v. State, 66 Fla. 213, 63 South. Rep. 418; Cloud v. State, 64 Fla. 237, 60 South. Rep. 180. The evidence woiild support a conviction of petit larceny, but the verdict found defendant guilty as charged and sentence was imposed accordingly. Because of the failure to prove an essential element of the crime charged and of…
-
Watson v. State, 142 Fla. 218 (Fla. 1940)…8, 168 So. 528; Campbell v. State, 92 Fla. 775, 109 So. 809; Gordon v. State, 86 Fla. 255, 97 So. 428; Lockhart v. State, 79 Fla. 824, 85 So. 153; Whitfield v. State, 85 Fla. 142, 95 So. 430; Alford v. State, 76 Fla. 122, 79 So. 437; Cloud v. State, 64 Fla. 237, 60 So. 180; Thomas v. State, 39 Fla. 437, 22 So. 725; Luster v. State, 23 Fla. 339, 2 So. 690; Brevaldo v. State, 21 Fla. 789. The record shows that W. A. Watson had a home near Geneva, Alabama. Flis second wife was then suffering with pulmonary t…
-
Campbell v. State, 331 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1976)…tate, 23 Fla. 339, 2 So. 690 (1887); Pinson v. State, 28 Fla. 735, 9 So. 706 (1891); Thomas v. State, 39 Fla. 437, 22 So. 725 (1897); Penton v. State, 42 Fla. 560, 28 So. 774 (1900); Whitehead v. State, 48 Fla. 64, 37 So. 302 (1904); Cloud v. State, 64 Fla. 237, 60 So. 180 (1912); Wildman v. State, 157 Fla. 334, 25 So. 2d 808 (1946). This Court reversed each of those seven convictions. The other three convictions were generated by that portion of the statute which contains the language now under review. Tw…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Whitehead v. State, 48 Fla. 64 (Fla. 1904)