HOMER LANGFORD
v.
STATE
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.
Homer Langford was convicted under a Florida statute prohibiting lewdly and lasciviously cohabiting without marriage. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute requires proof that unmarried persons of opposite sex lived together in sexual relations, and that the evidence sufficiently proved the offense.
The court held that the statute proscribes a man and woman not married to each other living together after the manner of husband and wife insofar as sexual relations are concerned, without requiring them to hold themselves out as husband and wife. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, and there was no error in refusing the requested jury charges because they were covered by the general charge.
“This unlawful act occurs when a man and a woman not being married to each other live together after the manner of husband and wife insofar as sexual relations are concerned. They do not have to hold themselves out as husband and wife, but if they live together in a house occupying generally the same bed at night and frequently engaging in sexual intercourse while occupying such bed together, the offense is committed.”
The court's definition of the statutory offense of lewd and lascivious cohabitation by unmarried persons.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHomer Langford was charged with lewdly and lasciviously associating and cohabiting with a woman not married to him in violation of Florida law. The ev…
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.
The writ of error brings for review a judgment of conviction of the statutory offense denounced by *429Sections 5407 R. G. S., 7550 C. G. L., when committed by a man and a woman not married to one another.
The information charged the offense substantially in the language of the state and was sufficient. The statute denounces two kinds of acts. One is that of a man and a woman not being married to each other lewdly and lasciviously associating and cohabiting together. This unlawful act occurs when a man and a woman not being married to each other live together after the manner of husband and wife insofar as sexual relations are concerned. They do not have to hold themselves out as husband and wife, but if they live together in a house occupying generally the same bed at night and frequently engaging in sexual intercourse while occupying such bed together, the offense is committed. That is the offense which was charged in the information. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.
The other offense denounced by this Section is open lewd and lascivious conduct and may be committed by husband and wife as well as persons of the opposite sex or same sex, whether married or unmarried to each other, or it may be committed by either a man or woman alone, but so openly as to be offensive. We are not concerned here with this offense.
There was no error in refusing to give charges 1, 2 and 3 asked by the defendant because insofar as those requested charges correctly stated the law they had been covered by the Court’s general charge.
• No reversible error being made to appear, the judgment should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
*430Whitfield, C. J., concurs in the opinion and judgment.
Brown and Davis, J. J., dissent.
(dissenting).' — The weakness of the State’s proof of the essential element of unlawful cohabitation and association charged, in my judgment rendered the refusal of defendant’s requested charge No. 1 harmful error, as that charge emphasized, as it was designed to do, the real issue in the trial, and therefore defendant should not have been denied the benefit of a specific charge on the subject covered by it, in view of the nature of the defendant’s defense of the propriety of his conduct under the circumstances existing in his family.
(dissenting). — I do not think the evidence in this case was sufficient to prove the offense denounced by this Statute as construed by the previous decisions of this Court, or by the trial judge in his general charge, which I think followed our previous decisions.
Davis, J.
(dissenting).' — The weakness of the State’s proof of the essential element of unlawful cohabitation and association charged, in my judgment rendered the refusal of defendant’s requested charge No. 1 harmful error, as that charge emphasized, as it was designed to do, the real issue in the trial, and therefore defendant should not have been denied the benefit of a specific charge on the subject covered by it, in view of the nature of the defendant’s defense of the propriety of his conduct under the circumstances existing in his family.
Brown, J.
(dissenting). — I do not think the evidence in this case was sufficient to prove the offense denounced by this Statute as construed by the previous decisions of this Court, or by the trial judge in his general charge, which I think followed our previous decisions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Watson v. State, 142 Fla. 218 (Fla. 1940)…and wife existed. A mere occasional illicit intercourse is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute, but it must be shown that there was a living or residing together openly, as if the conjugal relation existed. See Langford v. State, 124 Fla. 428, 168 So. 528; Campbell v. State, 92 Fla. 775, 109 So. 809; Gordon v. State, 86 Fla. 255, 97 So. 428; Lockhart v. State, 79 Fla. 824, 85 So. 153; Whitfield v. State, 85 Fla. 142, 95 So. 430; Alford v. State, 76 Fla. 122, 79 So. 437; Cloud v. State, 6…
-
Motor Transit Co. v. Studstill, 129 Fla. 769 (Fla. 1937)…ot error on the part of the court to refuse to reiterate that doctrine at the request of the plaintiff as made in the 4th and 5th requested instructions. See So. Express Co. v. VanMeter, 17 Fla. 783, 35 Am. Rep. 107; Langford v. State, 124 Fla. 428, 168 South. Rep. 528; Halfrick v. State, 122 Fla. 375, 165 South. Rep. 285. The principle involved in the requested 5th charge as made by the plaintiff that the unnecessary jerking of a train or street car while a passenger is rightfully alighting is negligence is not…
-
Wildman v. State, 157 Fla. 334 (Fla. 1946)…in the conjugal relation between husband and wife. See Luster v. State, 23 Fla. 339, 2 So. 690; Pinson v. State, 28 Fla. 735, 9 So. 706; Penton v. State, 42 Fla. 560, 28 So. 774; Whitehead [*335] v. State, 48 Fla. 64, 37 So. 302; Langford v. State, 124 Fla. 428, 168 So. 528. The difficulty here as in most cases, lies in the application of the law to the facts. The evidence consists of confessions of sexual intercourse and observations on the premises by deputy sheriffs, which is indicated that Dowdell mai…