GEORGE VICTER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 court held that the information charging possession of explosives was sufficient and the statute prohibiting unlicensed possession of explosives was constitutionally valid as applied.
Appellant was convicted of possessing explosives without a license. He appealed, arguing the information was insufficient and the statute was invalid.…
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 Constitutional Validity Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, George Victer, and two others were arrested and an information was filed charging them in one count with transportation of explosives on a public highway without a license contrary to § 552.12, Fla.Stat, F.S.A., and in a second count with possession of explosives without a license in violation of § 552.101, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. A jury trial resulted in appellant’s acquittal on the first count and his conviction on the second count. A judgment was entered, the appellant received a three year sentence and thereafter appealed to this Court. On our examination of the record, we transferred the case to the District Court of Appeal, Third District, because of lack of jurisdiction.1 The District Court affirmed2, saying, inter alia:
“The statute involved is valid, and not subject to the infirmities suggested by the appellant.”
Now we accept jurisdiction under the constitutional provision authorizing us to review a decision of a district court initially passing upon the validity of a state statute.3
We will discuss two points raised here:
(1) whether the statute under which appellant was convicted is valid, and
(2) whether the information filed was sufficient to charge the appellant with a crime.
In accordance with the established doctrine that a court has a duty to refrain from passing on the validity of a statute if the case can be properly decided on another ground,4 we will consider first the question of the sufficiency of the information. The challenged portion of Count Two of the information is as follows:
“[The appellant and co-defendants] * * * did then and there unlawfully and knowingly have in their possession an explosive without having a license or permit from the State Fire Marshall of the State of Florida as provided by *546law, to-wit: ‘a chemical compound or mixture having the property of yielding readily to combustion or oxidation upon the application of heat, flame or shock, a better and more particular description of said explosive being to the State Attorney unknown, contrary to Florida Statutes 552.101.”
In Robinson v. State,5 this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Ellis, said:
“This provision in the Constitution (‘to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him’, Decl. of Rights, § 11) was based upon the presumption of innocence, and requires such certainty in indictments and inf or-mations as will.enable an innocent person to prepare for trial, that will furnish the accused with reasonable information of what he is called upon to answer by setting forth the constituent elements of the offense or crime with which he is charged. This provision requires that the accusation shall set forth with reasonable certainty a charge of the crime for which the prisoner is to be tried; the object of the provision being to protect the innocent, not to shield the guilty.”
Judged by this standard, the second count of the information under which the appellant was convicted is sufficient.
We now direct our attention to the constitutional validity of F.S. section 552.101, F.S.A. condemning, as we have heretofore stated, the possession of explosives without having previously secured a license therefor. Appellant’s challenge to this statute is limited to its effect on him under the facts which form the basis of his conviction in this case. As applied to the appellant under these facts, we find no constitutional infirmity in the subject statute. We discern no reason why the Legislature may not lawfully prohibit the possession of explosives of any kind except by those who .have previously procured a license therefor. A decision of whether, as is suggested here, the term “explosives” as used in and defined by the statute may be construed to include everyday household items such as gasoline, kitchen matches, propane gas, etc. is not germane to our decision. Moreover, such possibility does not in itself, render the statute unconstitutional vel non. Nothing said in Locklin v. Pridgeon (1947), 158 Fla. 737, 30 So.2d 102, nor in the cases there cited nor in any of the text quoted by appellant compels a contrary conclusion.
We have considered all of the other points raised by the appellant and find them separately and severally to be without merit.
The decision of the District Court of Appeal is affirmed.
ROBERTS, THORNAL, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
THOMAS, J., agrees to conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Coleen Marie Magee, 259 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1972)…v. Hardie, 114 Fla. 670, 154 So. 690 (1934) ; Locklin v. Pridgeon, 158 Fla. 737, 30 So. 2d 102 (1947) ; and State v. Buchanan, 191 So. 2d 33 (Fla.1966). . Fla.Const. art. I, § 16; Robinson v. State, 69 Fla. 521, 68 So. 649 (1915) ; Victer v. State, 174 So. 2d 544 (Fla.1965) ; State v. Smith, 240 So. 2d 807 (Fla.1970).…
-
Battle v. State, 365 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…e the defendant to plead prior jeopardy as a defense if additional charges are brought for the same offense. See, e. g., Russell v. U. S., 369 U.S. 749, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962); State v. Smith, 240 So. 2d 807 (Fla.1970); Victer v. State, 174 So. 2d 544 (Fla.1965); and State v. Jones, 312 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Further, our Supreme Court has recently considered the criteria for sufficiency in conspiracy cases in Goldberg v. State, 351 So. 2d 332 (Fla.1977), as this court has likewise done…
-
Buckhalt v. McGHEE, 632 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…hild, it is not necessary or appropriate for us to decide the constitutionality of section 61.13(7). Florida courts must avoid passing on the constitutionality of a statute if it is possible to resolve the case on other grounds. See Victer v. State, 174 So. 2d 544, 545 (Fla.1965); Florida High School Activities Ass’n, Inc. v. Temple Baptist Church, Inc., 509 So. 2d 1381, 1383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The trial court merely made a temporary arrangement for the safety and best interests of this child, until a perm…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Locklin v. Pridgeon, 158 Fla. 737 (Fla. 1947)
- State v. Bruno, 104 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1958)
- P. C. Lissenden Co., Inc. v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Palm Beach Cnty., 116 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1959)
- Robinson v. State, 69 Fla. 521 (Fla. 1915)
- Victer v. State, 160 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)