ISAAC NELSON, 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.
Isaac Nelson appealed his conviction for concealing intoxicating liquor with intent to defraud the state of beverage tax under Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, holding that Nelson waived defects in the information by failing to obtain a ruling on his motion to quash before trial, and that the court could not review the sufficiency of evidence because only a portion of the trial record was presented on appeal.
The court held that Nelson waived any defects in the information by failing to obtain a ruling on his motion to quash before proceeding to trial, rendering the first issue foreclosed from appeal. On the second issue, the court could not review sufficiency of evidence because only a portion of the trial record was presented on appeal.
“The action of the defendant in failing to obtain a ruling on his Motion to Quash, prior to trial, amounts to a waiver of the defects, if any, in the information attacked thereby.”
Establishes that failure to secure a ruling on a pretrial motion before proceeding to trial constitutes waiver of defects in the charging instrument.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 3, 1954, an information was filed charging Isaac Nelson with concealing approximately one gallon and four ounces of moonshine whiskey with…
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 Sufficiency Of Evidence On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
O’CONNELL, Justice.
On December 3, 1954 an information was filed in the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, against the appellant, Isaac Nelson, charging that he “did conceal and was concerned in concealing a beverage for or in respect whereof a tax is imposed by the beverage law or would be imposed if such beverage were manufactured in or brought into the State in accordance with the regulatory provisions thereof, with intent to defraud the state of such tax, namely: approximately one gallon and four ounces of intoxicating liquor commonly called moonshine whiskey, * * *” said information being drawn under the provisions of Section 562.32, F.S.1953, F.S.A. Thereafter on December 15, 1954 the defendant, appellant here, filed a Motion to Quash Information. There is no order in the record overruling or sustaining the Motion to Quash, nor is it shown that defendant, appellant, ever requested a ruling thereon. Appellant in his brief contends, however, that the record shows, as it does, that the defendant was placed on trial on June 16, 1955, and that by so doing, the trial court in actual fact overruled the Motion to Quash. The defendant waived trial by jury, was tried by the court and found guilty.
The appellant raises two questions, the first being, “Does an information purporting to charge violation of the offense of concealing a beverage with intent to defraud the State of a tax under Section 562.32 (F.S.1953 [F.S.A.]) charge a violation of such statute when the information fails to allege that the tax was not paid?” This question must be resolved against appellant for he has failed to show that any ruling was ever made upon the Motion to Quash filed by him, or that the matter was duly brought on for consideration by the trial court prior to proceeding to trial. The action of the defendant in failing to obtain a ruling on his Motion to Quash, prior to trial, amounts to a waiver of the defects, if any, in the information attacked thereby. The point is accordingly foreclosed and cannot be raised on appeal. Sinclair v. State, Fla., 46 So. 2d 453; Section 909.06, F.S. 1953, F.S.A.; Ortiz v. State, 30 Fla. 256, 11 So. 611; Baxley v. State, 72 Fla. 228, 72 So. 677; 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1679, p. 330.
The second question raised is, “Does the evidence show beyond a reasonable doubt that the tax was not paid upon the beverage found in the possession of the appellant?” It affirmatively appears and is not controverted that only a portion of the record in the court below was brought here on appeal. Questions of sufficiency of evidence will not be considered by this Court unless all the evidence that was before the trial court is presented to this Court. Holland v. State, 39 Fla. 178, 22 So. 298, 302.
For the reasons above cited the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Dolan Darling v. State, 808 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 2002)…r, as Darling argues, the United States would incur obligations under the treaty to foreign nationals of non-signatory states. Further, the record does not reflect that Darling obtained a ruling on his motion in the trial court. Cf. Nelson v. State, 85 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1956) (holding that the question of any irregularities in the information was "foreclosed and cannot be raised on appeal” where the appellant had "failed to show that any ruling was ever made upon the Motion to Quash filed by him”); see also Ib…
-
Costantino v. State, 224 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…o photographs are not in the record on appeal. The appellant may not present an alleged error for appellate consideration on an incomplete record if the omitted matter might affect the determination of the reviewing court. Nelson v. State, Fla.1956, 85 So. 2d 832; Albritton v. State, 54 Fla. 6, 44 So. 745 (1907). We have examined the other points argued by the defendant for reversal and find them to be without merit. The judgment and sentence of the trial court are Affirmed.…
-
Damkohler v. Heidi Damkohler (Pollmann), 336 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…of bringing before this court a complete record of the proceedings below. In the absence of such a record we must presume that there was sufficient evidence and testimony presented to the trial court to support its findings of fact. Nelson v. State, 85 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1956); Hall v. Bass, 309 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). We are therefore limited to a consideration of any fundamental error which appears on the face of the order. The relevant portion of the contempt order which is the subject of this appea…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lon Holland v. State, 39 Fla. 178 (Fla. 1897)
- Claudio Ortiz v. State, 30 Fla. 256 (Fla. 1892)
- Sinclair v. State, 46 So.2d 453 (Fla. 1950)
- Baxley v. State, 72 Fla. 228 (Fla. 1916)