DEWEY MCLAUGHLIN AND CONNIE HOFFMAN, ALSO KNOWN AS CONNIE GONZALEZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEES
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 its prior affirmance of convictions under Florida's anti-miscegenation statute after the U.S. Supreme Court overruled its own precedent in Pace v. Alabama, holding that racial classifications in cohabitation laws violate the Equal Protection Clause.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed its conviction and remanded the case, concluding that the U.S. Supreme Court's new determination that racial classifications in the statute constitute invidious discrimination requires the state court to recede from its prior affirmance and apply the updated constitutional law.
“the racial classification contained in Fla.Stat. § 798.05, F.S.A. is reduced to an invidious discrimination”
The U.S. Supreme Court's overruling of Pace v. Alabama and finding that the statute's racial classification violates Equal Protection
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDewey McLaughlin, a Black man, and Connie Hoffman, a white woman, were charged with violating Florida Statute § 798.05, which prohibited interracial c…
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 Racial Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
We have this cause on remand by the Supreme Court of the United States, 85 S.Ct. 283.
Defendants below, Dewey McLaughlin, a Negro man, and Connie Hoffman, a white woman, were charged with having violated § 798.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.1
The trial court denied Defendants’ motion to quash the information as violative of the Federal and State Constitutions. The defendants were put on trial, found guilty by a jury and sentenced to thirty (30) days in the county jail and a fine of $150.00.
*461Upon appeal to this Court defendants contended that they were denied equal protection of the law because: “Firstly, the law provides a special criminal prohibition on cohabitation solely for persons who are of different races; or secondly, if this special statute is equated with the general fornication statute, the higher penalties are imposed on the person whose races differ than would be applicable to persons of the same race who commit the same acts'.”
The state contended, and we agreed, the Supreme Court of the United States, by its unanimous opinion in Pace v. Alabama,2 had settled the constitutional question involved by upholding a similar statute. There the Court held the statute prohibiting interracial cohabitation was directed against the offense and not against a person of particular race or color and sustained conviction.
Our judicial duty required that we follow the clear and unequivocal construction of the Federal Constitution announced in Pace, the assumption being that the Constitution, not having been amended in the manner therein prescribed, meant, in this cause, just what the Supreme Court of the United States had held it to mean in the Pace case. We upheld the. statute and sustained the conviction.
Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States was “especially sensitive” to the policies of the equal protection clause and concluded, notwithstanding its previous holding to the contrary, that the racial classification contained in Fla.Stat. § 798.05, F.S.A. is reduced to an invidious discrimination.
In the light of this new and contrary construction of the Constitution we are required, perforce, to recede from our affirmance of the conviction appealed from and remand the cause for disposition in accordance with the new Law of the Land.
It is so ordered.
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
ERVIN, J., did not participate.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McLAUGHLIN v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184 (U.S. 1964)
- Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (U.S. 1882)