HENRY CLYDE WARREN, APPELLANT,
v.
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 for public profanity was void for failing to specify the profane words used, but affirmed the conviction for driving while intoxicated.
Defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated and public profanity after a jury trial. He appealed both convictions.…
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 Driving While Intoxicated cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant seeks to review judgments of conviction upon a jury trial under a two-count information charging him with the offenses of driving while intoxicated and public profanity.
Our consideration of the record on appeal, briefs, and oral arguments does not show that the appellant has demonstrated the commission of reversible error in arriving at the judgment in the count based on driving while intoxicated. Such is the appellant’s burden that he must show that the trial proceedings are so infected with prejudicial error as to compel a reversal of the judgment. 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, Section 361.
The other charge of which appellant was found guilty was brought under Section 847.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., prohibiting the use of profane, vulgar, and indecent language in public. Appellant contends that the information on this charge is void because of its failure to specify the words used which constituted the profanity. We agree and reverse the judgment of conviction on the profanity count only.
It is our opinion that the offense of profanity is of such nature that a descrip*610tion of the words used should be given in the charging instrument. Reyes v. State, 34 Fla. 181, 15 So. 875; Kittleson v. State, 152 Fla. 242, 9 So.2d 807.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Reyes v. State, 34 Fla. 181 (Fla. 1894)
- Kittleson v. State, 152 Fla. 242 (Fla. 1942)
- Upshaw v. Renuart Lumber Yards, Inc., 152 Fla. 242 (Fla. 1942)