ARTHUR R. COULSON, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction for a second offense of violating prohibition laws, finding the jury's verdict fatally defective for not separately determining the prior conviction.
No, the jury's verdict was fatally defective because it did not expressly and separately determine the historical fact of the defendant's former conviction as alleged in the indictment.
“The Attorney General concedes that the judgment of conviction cannot stand because the verdict of the jury is fatally defective in that it did not expressly determine separately the historical fact of the plaintiff in error’s first conviction, as alleged in the Circuit Court indictment.”
This quote establishes the concession by the Attorney General that the verdict was flawed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArthur R. Coulson was convicted of violating state prohibition laws as a second offender. The indictment alleged a prior conviction. The jury returned…
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.
This is a writ of error prosecuted to a judgment of conviction for violation of the State prohibition laws against the sale, manufacture or possession of intoxicating liquors, second offense. See Section 7630 C. G.. L„ 5486 R. G. S.
The Attorney General concedes that the judgment of conviction cannot stand because the verdict of the jury is fatally defective in that it did not expressly determine separately the historical fact of the plaintiff in error’s first conviction, as alleged in the Circuit Court indictment.
When a person is indicted and tried for a violation of the intoxicating liquor law as a second offender under Section 7630 C. G. L., 5486 R. G. S., the jury should expressly determine separately the question of the historical fact of the defendant’s former conviction as alleged. Benson v. State, 88 Fla. 103, 101 Sou. Rep. 231. The verdict in this case is simply, “We the Jurors find the defendant guilty of first and second count James ITobbs, Foreman.” We hold, in line with the case above cited and the contention of plaintiff in error, that under such a verdict no judgment of conviction for a second offense violation of the liquor law was authorized, therefore this writ of error is well taken and the judgment must be reversed' and the cause remanded with directions to have such appropriate proceedings as may be in accordance with law.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Ellis and TERRELL, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and'BuFORD, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barnhill v. State, 41 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1949)…was that the prior conviction "was not sufficiently proven" and this Court held that "the verdict should have been set aside on defendant's motion and a new trial awarded" and the cause was "reversed for a new trial." The case of Coulson v. State, 110 Fla. 279, 149 So. 521, involved a second offense against the liquor law, to-wit: Sec. 7630, C.G.L., and the verdict of the jury was: "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of first and second counts." The complaint upon appeal was that "the verdict of the…1 / 3
-
Vazquez v. State, 405 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…980); State v. Dixon 193 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); see also Warren v. State, 74 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1954); Sparkman v. State Prison Custodian, 154 Fla. 688, 18 So. 2d 772 (1944); Clinton v. State, 143 Fla. 356, 196 So. 684 (1940); Coulson v. State, 110 Fla. 279, 149 So. 521 (1933); Timmons v. State, 97 Fla. 23, 119 So. 393 (1929); Ballard v. State, 96 Fla. 566, 119 So. 146 (1928). Contra, Hall v. State, 400 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). . “In the circumstances of this case we are impelled to conclude th…
-
Nichols v. State, 231 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…Nichols admits that the case of Barnhill v. State, Fla. 1949, 41 So. 2d 329, and the cases therein cited, State ex rel. Lockmiller v. Mayo, 1924, 88 Fla. 96, 101 So. 228; Benson v. State, 1924, 88 Fla. 103, 101 So. 231, and Coulson v. State, 1933, 110 Fla. 279, 149 So. 521, 522, are authority contrary to his contention. We have examined Barnhill and the other cases and find that they abundantly support the action of the trial Judge in the case sub judice in submitting to the jury not only the guilt or inn…
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
- Benson v. State, 88 Fla. 103 (Fla. 1924)