STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
WILLIE PRIDGEN
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of an information charging Willie Pridgen with unlawfully removing and concealing moonshine whiskey in violation of the state's beverage tax law. The court held that the statute cannot impose criminal liability for failure to pay a tax when the statute provides no lawful means for the accused to obtain and pay the required tax.
The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a statute cannot constitutionally impose criminal liability for failure to pay a tax when the statute provides no lawful means for the accused to obtain and pay the required tax. The practical impossibility of compliance renders the statute unenforceable.
“The condemnation by law for failure to comply with a tax law necessarily presupposes the sanction of law to pay the tax.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that criminal liability for tax non-compliance requires a lawful mechanism for compliance to exist.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 20, 1944, Willie Pridgen allegedly unlawfully removed, deposited, and concealed one pint of moonshine whiskey upon which the state beverag…
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 Excessive Fines Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
An information was filed in the Circuit Court of Okaloosa County, Florida, on the 4th day of May, 1944, charging that the appellee, Willie Pridgen, on February 20, 1944, did urn lawfully remove, deposit and conceal, and was unlawfully concerned in removing, depositing and concealing a beverage for and in respect whereof a tax is imposed and levied by the Beverage Act of the State of Florida, to-wit: One pint of liquor, which liquor was and is known as moonshine whiskey, upon which said liquor the tax had not been paid by the manufacturer or distributor thereof or by any other person, with intent to defraud the State of Florida of such tax.
The information was filed pursuant to Sec. 562.32, F.S. ’41, F.S.A., which provides:
“Every person who removes, deposits, or conceals, or is concerned in removing, depositing or concealing any beverage for or in respect whereof any tax is imposed by the beverage law; or would be imposed if such beverage were manufactured in or brought into this State in accordance with the regulatory provisions thereof, with intent to defraud the State of Florida of such tax or any part thereof, shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of not less than one year or more than five years.”
A motion to quash was granted and the State appeals.
There may be two questions presented. First, whether the charge may be maintained in the absence of a showing that the commodity was one subject to a tax. Second, is *33the act unconstitutional because it imposes excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishment contrary to Section 8, Declaration of Rights, Constitution of Florida ?
We might be content to resolve both of these questions adverse to the state upon authority of Brown v. State, 152 Fla. 853, 13 So. (2nd) 458, except for the contention that subsequent to the Brown case the Legislature of Florida, in 1943, enacted Chapter 21839.
The condemnation by law for failure to comply with a tax law necessarily presupposes the sanction of law to pay the tax. We have searched the statute in vain to find authority whereby the accused might have purchased the tax stamp in obedience to our statute. Counsel for the state at the bar of this Court has made no contention that the accused could have obtained the stamps and attached them to the moonshine in compliance with the statute.
It is our conclusion that notwithstanding Chapter 21839, Laws of 1943, the judgment here must be affirmed on authority of Brown v. State, supra.
Affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL and BROWN, JJ., concur.
CHAPMAN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., agrée to conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Byrd v. State, 80 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1955)…ng HOBSON, Justice. In his petition for rehearing or modification of our opinion in this case, the Attorney General contends that we failed to consider our holdings in Brown v. State, 152 Fla. 853, 13 So. 2d 458, and State v. Pridgen, 155 Fla. 31, 19 So. 2d 510, 511, to the effect that moonshine whiskey is a beverage in respect to which no tax may be levied or collected. In the Brown and Pridgen cases the information used the term “moonshine whiskey” and alleged that it was a beverage upon which a tax was…
-
Harris v. State, 160 Fla. 720 (Fla. 1948)…tion sufficiently charged a violation of the second of these prohibitions. The appellant, in his effort to secure reversal here, leans heavily upon the decisions of this court in Brown v. State, 152 Fla. 853, 13 So. (2nd) 458, and State v. Pridgen, 155 Fla. 31, 19 So. (2nd) 510, but we think these decisions, which we shall now analyze, afford him small comfort. In the first of these, not only was the charge couched in the present tense, but the beverage was described as “moonshine whiskey,” clearly indic…1 / 2
-
State v. Azie Ellis, 78 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1955)…fraud the State of Florida of such tax or any part thereof, shall be guilty of a felony * * The trial judge quashed the amended information, predicating his ruling upon the cases of Brown v. State, 152 Fla. 853, 13 So. 2d 458, and State v. Pridgen, 155 Fla. 31, 19 So. 2d 510. This is an appeal by the State of Florida from such order. The question for determination is whether the amended information charges an offense under the second prohibition of the statute, quoted supra. In the Brown case [152 Fla. 8…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 152 Fla. 853 (Fla. 1943)