CHARLES HAMILTON, III, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. | 1976-02-25
No. 47480
ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS and OVERTON, JJ., concur., ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., dissent.
329 So. 2d 283 Florida Supreme Court (1976) Negative Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that Section 509.151, Florida Statutes, which creates a prima facie presumption of intent to defraud for failure to pay for lodging after demand, is constitutional.

Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was charged with obtaining lodging with intent to defraud under Section 509.151, Florida Statutes. He moved to dismiss, arguing the statute …

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.

Topics
Rational Connection Test For Presumptions Rational Connection Test Statutory Presumption Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rational Connection Test For Presumptions cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
BOYD, Justice.

considered whether prima facie evidence of fraudulent intent based solely on a check returned for insufficient funds was constitutional; in that instance we upheld the statutory presumption. Likewise, we note that the federal Supreme Court has upheld the inference arising from the unexplained possession of recently stolen property.8 It is our view that the prima facie evidence of intent to defraud provided by Section 509.151, Florida Statutes, is no more of an incursion into the right against self-incrimination and the right to present proof beyond a reasonable doubt than the presumptions upheld in Dirk and Barnes, supra. In Section 509.151, Florida Statutes, there are four requirements of the evidence in order to provide the prima fa-cie evidence of intent: (1) the owner or operator must be shown to have probable cause to believe that the accused obtained food, lodging, etc., with intent to defraud; (2) demand for payment must be made; (3) there must be no dispute about the amount owed; and (4) there must be a failure to make payment. Admittedly, this statute may be susceptible to unconstitutional enforcement on occasion; nevertheless, in light of the criteria specified therein, we find the statutory language of the presumption to be constitutional. We have examined Appellant’s remaining points on appeal and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS and OVERTON, JJ., concur. ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., dissent. . Article V, Section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution. . 395 U.S. 6, 36, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 1548, 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969). . 319 U.S. 463, 467, 63 S.Ct. 1241, 87 L.Ed. 1519 (1943). . 380 U.S. 63, 85 S.Ct. 754, 13 L.Ed.2d 658 (1965). . 382 U.S. 136, 86 S.Ct. 279, 15 L.Ed.2d 210 (1965). . 232 So. 2d 166, 168 (Fla.1970). . 305 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1974). . Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (1973).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Carlton Rolle, 560 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 1990)
    …hat proof of confinement in such a facility rationally supports the conclusion that the defendant was lawfully confined there. Similarly, in a prosecution for failure to pay for food or lodging upon demand of an undisputed amount, Hamilton v. State, 329 So. 2d 283 (Fla.), appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 909, 97 S.Ct. 299, 50 L.Ed.2d 276 (1976), this Court determined that proof of same raises a "presumption” of intent to defraud. It can be fairly inferred that proof of the former rationally supports a conclusion of…
  • State v. Rygwelski, 899 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
    …evidence” of another fact does not relieve the State of its burden of proof. Thus Kahler establishes that such language creates only a permissive inference (an evidentiary device that does not reheve the State of its burden). In Hamilton v. State, 329 So. 2d 283 (Fla.1976), the court relied on Kahler when construing a statute similar to the one at issue in this case. Section 509.151 prohibited obtaining lodging with the intent to defraud. Concerning proof of intent, the statute provided that “upon demand fo…
  • Ercoli v. State, 329 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1976)
    …BOYD, Justice. Based on the opinion filed in Hamilton v. State, Fla., 329 So. 2d 283, opinion filed February 25, 1976, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. It is so ordered. ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS and OVERTON, JJ., concur. ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., dissent.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw