LANTHE CALHOUN
v.
ROY BADEN, AS SHERIFF OF MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA
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.
Lanthe Calhoun sought habeas corpus discharge, challenging whether Florida law criminalized death caused by operating an automobile while intoxicated. The Florida Supreme Court held that such conduct remained a statutory crime despite the petitioner's argument that an intervening traffic regulation statute implicitly repealed the applicable criminal statute.
Section 860.01 was not repealed by Chapter 20578, Acts of 1941. The two statutes address different subject matters—Chapter 20578 concerns speed and traffic regulation on highways while Section 860.01 addresses punishment for manslaughter committed while intoxicated. There is no express repeal or diametrical repugnance between them.
“Chapter 20578, Acts of 1941, treats the subject of traffic regulation. True, it denounces the offense of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotics but it does not touch the offense of killing one when operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.”
Establishes that the two statutes address different subject matters and therefore Chapter 20578 did not implicitly repeal Section 860.01.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Calhoun was arrested and held in custody on charges of operating an automobile while intoxicated in such a manner as to cause the death of …
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 Repeal By Implication cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner was arrested and taken in custody by defendant on the charge that she did “unlawfully while intoxicated by. the use of alcoholic liquor, operate a certain automobile in such manner as to run against Theodore Harry with such force and violence as to inflict in and upon the said Theodore Harry mortal injuries the said Theodore Harry then and there died.”
She petitions this Court for discharge by writ of habeas corpus alleging that the information on which she is held is fatally defective because there was at the time of the death of Theodore Harry no statute in Florida making it a crime to effect the death of another while driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
It appears from the record that Chapter 6882, Acts of 1915, as amended by Chapter 9269, Acts of 1923, as amended by Chapter 11809, Acts of 1927, now Section 860.01, Florida Statutes of 1941, denounced and made a crime the act of killing a human being by any one operating a motor vehicle when intoxicated.
The petitioner contends that Section 860.01, Florida Statutes of 1941 was repealed by Chapter 20578, Acts of 1941, and that there was no law in effect on the question from the effective date of the latter act, June 2, 1941, to July 29, 1942, the effective date of the Florida Statutes of 1941, the offense in question having taken place January 7, 1942, when there existed no statute on the subject.
Chapter 20578, Acts of 1941, treats the subject of traffic regulation. True, it denounces the offense of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotics but it does not touch the offense of killing one when operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. In other words, the thesis of Chapter 20578 is speed and traffic regulation *665on the highway while the thesis of Section 860.01 is punishment for manslaughter committed while intoxicated.
We find nothing whatever in Chapter 20578 that points to an intent or purpose to repeal Section 806.01. Neither are the two acts so inconsistent or repugnant that we could say there was a repeal by implication. American Bakeries Company v. Haines City, 131 Fla. 790, 180 So. 524. A statute that has been repeatedly recognized for more than twenty-five years will not be held as repealed except on diametrical repugnance or express showing to do so.
The petition is accordingly denied and the petitioner is remanded.
It is so ordered.
BUFORD, C. J., CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. SCM Glidco Organics Corp. & Seminole Kraft Corp., 592 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…nized over a long period of time, such as section 823.01, which was first enacted [*716] into law in 1832,3 will similarly not be held repealed unless there is a showing of diametric repugnancy or an intent to repeal. Calhoun v. Baden, 153 Pla. 663, 15 So. 2d 444 (1943). It is of course true that if the later act is intended to cover an entire subject of legislation, it may be considered to operate as a repeal of all prior acts dealing with the same subject. Zedalis v. Foster, 343 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 197…
Authorities Cited
- Am. Bakeries Co. v. City of Haines City, 131 Fla. 790 (Fla. 1938)