GUS MCGRIFF, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Fla. | 1913-08-30
66 Fla. 335 Florida Supreme Court (1913) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court denied a rehearing, affirming a conviction where the affidavit did not explicitly state the local option law was in effect in the newly formed Seminole County, holding that the court could take judicial notice of the relevant legislative act and its effective dates.

Holding

No, the affidavit sufficiently alleged an offense. The court can take judicial notice of the legislative act forming Seminole County and its effective dates, which established the local option status.

Key Quotes

“The affidavit alleges that the place where the offense was committed was then “a part of Seminole County, the said county of Orange of which Seminole was formerly a part, having heretofore voted against the sale of liquors,” and the court takes judicial notice of the Act of the Legislature forming Seminole county 'wholly from a part of Orange county.”

Establishes the factual basis of the affidavit and the court's reliance on judicial notice.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff in error was convicted based on an affidavit alleging an offense in Seminole County. The affidavit stated that Seminole County, formerly par…

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.

Topics
Affidavit Sufficiency Jurisdiction Of The Court Judicial Notice

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Affidavit Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

A petition for rehearing suggests that the court overlooked the contention made that the affidavit of complainant upon which the plaintiff in error was tried and convicted, does not allege that the local option provision of law was in force in Seminole county when the alleged offense was committed. The matter referred to was not overlooked. The affidavit alleges that the place where the offense was committed was then “a part of Seminole County, the said county of Orange of which Seminole was formerly a part, having heretofore voted against the sale of liquors,” and the court takes judicial notice of the Act of the Legislature forming Seminole county 'wholly from a part of Orange county.

The Act became effective upon its approval by the Governor, April 25, 3013, but the terms of Section 5 of the Act made it the duty of the Board of County Commissioners of Seminole County to hold their first meeting on the first Tuesday in August, 1913, thus making it a legal impossibility for an election to have been held in Seminole County prior to August 30, 1913, the date of the alleged offense. The affidavit does not wholly fail to allege an offense under the law so as to affect the jurisdiction of the court as in Ex Parte Bailey, 39 Fla. 734, 23 South. Rep. 552.

Rehearing denied.

All concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Butler v. J. W. Perry as Sheriff, 67 Fla. 405 (Fla. 1914)
    …he affidavit does not entirely fail to allege an offense under the statute, so as to make the conviction wholly without authority of law as in ex parte Bailey, 39 Fla. 734, 23 South. Rep. 552, and Lewis v. Nelson, 62 Fla. 71, 56 South. Rep. 436. See 66 Fla. 335. The contention that the affidavit is fatally defective in that it does not allege that the accused was not exempt from the duties imposed by the statute, is not tenable, since the exemptions are not a part of the definition of the statutory offens…
  • Crooke v. Van Pelt, 76 Fla. 20 (Fla. 1918)
    …abeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for a motion to quash or a writ of error or an appeal.” See also to the same effect Mooneyham v. Bowles, 72 Fla. 259, 72 South. Rep. 931; Butler v. Perry, 67 Fla. 405, 66 South. Rep. 150; McGriff v. State, 66 Fla. 335, 63 South. Rep. 725. It is also well established in this jurisdiction that a charge in a criminal prosecution is not fatally defective because it does not allege defensive matter not a part of the definition of the offense charged. Butler v. Perry,…
  • Foxworth v. W. E. Law, 77 Fla. 596 (Fla. 1919)
    …ectively alleged crime as in In re Robinson, 73 Fla. 1068, 75 South. Rep. 604; Ex-Parte Prince, 27 Fla. 196, 9 South. Rep. 659; Butler v. Perry, 67 Fla. 405, 66 South. Rep. 150; Mooneyham v. Bowles, 72 Fla. 259, 72 South. Rep. 931; McGriff v. State, 66 Fla. 335, 63 South. Rep. 725; Jackson v. State, 71 Fla. 342, 71 South. Rep. 332. The charge wholly fails to allege an offense under the laws of the State. Ex Parte Bailey, supra; Ex Parte Hays, 25 Fla. 279, 6 South. Rep. 64; Lewis v. Nelson, supra. As the a…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw