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.
Arthur R. Coulson was convicted as a second-offense liquor law violator, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed because the jury's verdict did not separately establish the historical fact of his prior conviction and identity as the previously convicted offender, as required by law.
A general guilty verdict in a second-offense prosecution is insufficient; the jury must separately establish both the current offense and the historical fact of the prior conviction coupled with proof of the defendant's identity as the prior convicted criminal. The verdict must expressly separate these elements to sustain conviction on a second-offense charge.
“the identity of the defendant as the person so formerly convicted as alleged in the second offense indictment, must be established or the conviction for the higher offense is not authorized”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that identity of the defendant as a prior offender must be proven to sustain a second-offense conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCoulson was indicted for selling intoxicating liquors in Walton County on May 11, 1930, with an allegation that he had been previously convicted and s…
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.
Arthur R. Coulson, defendant below, plaintiff in error here, was indicted by the Grand Jury of Walton County for the crime of second offense liquor law violator under Section 7630 C. G. L., 5486, R. G. S. Upon writ of error he claims that the judgment and sentence imposed upon him should be reversed for the reason that his conviction was not had in accordance with the essential requirements of law, in that his alleged conviction as a first offender as laid in the indictment was not sufficiently proven.
The indictment charged the defendant Arthur R. Coulson with selling intoxicating liquors in Walton County, Florida, on the 11th day of May, A. D. 1930, and that prior to that date, to-wit: on the 17th day of June, 1929, that he had been duly convicted and sentenced for a like offense in *282the County Judge’s Court. The verdict of the jury was: ■“We the jurors find the defendant guilty as charged,- R. T. King, Foreman.”
In a prosecution under Section 5486 R. G. S.., 7630 C. G. L., for violation of any of the provisions of the prohibition article upon a charge against the defendant as an alleged second offender, the identity of the defendant as the person so formerly convicted as alleged in the second offense indictment, must be established or the conviction for the higher offense is not authorized. Thus, it has been held by this Court, that on the trial of a person charged as a second offender, two questions, which in a sense are unrelated, are involved. The first of these is that of guilt or innocence of the offense charged in the present indictment as constituting the basis for returning it. The second is the historical fact of the alleged former conviction for the prior crime named in the indictment, coupled with proof of the identity of the present defendant as the prior convicted criminal. State ex rel. Lockmiller v. Mayo, 88 Fla. 96, 101 Sou. Rep. 228.
In the present case the verdict of the jury did not expressly separate, as we have held must be done, the historical fact of the defendant’s former conviction as alleged. Benson v. State, 88 Fla. 103, 101 Sou. Rep. 231. A verdict of “guilty” in a case like this where more severe penalties for a second or third offense are invoked, is not regarded as responsive to the allegations of the indictment charging a given criminal act as constituting a second offense in order to lay the predicate for an increased penalty on conviction. State ex rel. Lockmiller v. Mayo, supra. Therefore such verdict should have been set aside on defendant’s motion and a new trial awarded.
Reversed for a new trial.
Ellis and TeRrell, J. J., concur.
*283Whitfield, 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)…on arising upon the appeal is whether a verdict of "guilty as charged in the information" is sufficiently certain to sustain a judgment imposing punishment under the terms of Section562.45, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A. The case of Coulson v. State, 110 Fla. 281, 149 So. 522, involved a judgment and sentence as a second offender against the liquor law, to-wit: Sec. 7630, C.G.L. The verdict was: "We the jurors find the defendant guilty as charged." Upon appeal the complaint was that the prior conviction "wa…1 / 3
-
State v. Ellis Dixon, 193 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…felony of forgery, and such proof must be technical and specific. Smith v. State, 1928, 96 Fla. 553, 119 So. 145, followed in Ballard v. State, 1928, 96 Fla. 566, 119 So. 146; Timmons v. State, 1929, 97 Fla. 23, 119 So. 393; Coulson v. State, 1933, 110 Fla. 281, 149 So. 522; Clinton v. State, 1940, 143 Fla. 356, 196 So. 684; Sparkman v. State Prison Custodian, 1944, 154 Fla. 688, 18 So. 2d 772; and Warren v. State, Fla.1954, 74 So. 2d 688. And such proof might be more than merely perfunctory; it might inv…
-
Fred v. Spadaro, 332 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…RAWLS, Acting Chief Judge (dissenting). In Barnhill, supra, the Supreme Court quoted with approval the rule stated in Coulson v. State, 110 Fla. 281, 149 So. 522 (1933), viz: “. . . ‘In the present case the verdict of the jury did not expressly determine separately, as we have held must be done, the historical fact of the defendant’s former conviction as alleged. Benson v. State, 88 Fla. 103, 1…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mayo, 88 Fla. 96 (Fla. 1924)
- Benson v. State, 88 Fla. 103 (Fla. 1924)