FRANK JOHNS
v.
STATE OF 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.
Frank Johns was indicted for conducting a lottery after testifying at a preliminary hearing in a separate murder charge. He moved to quash the lottery indictment, claiming immunity under Florida statute § 932.29 because he had been compelled to testify about his lottery activities at the murder preliminary hearing. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, holding that the immunity statute applies only when testimony is compelled in proceedings related to specified offenses, not in unrelated proceedings.
The defendant is not entitled to immunity under § 932.29 because the statute only affords immunity when testimony is compelled in proceedings involving specific enumerated offenses (bribery, burglary, larceny, gaming, gambling, or illegal liquor sales), and the testimony here was given at a preliminary hearing for murder in the first degree, which is not one of the protected categories.
“that on cross examination he was required, over his objection and protest, to testify as to his connection with the conducting of lotteries. That such connection by him with the conducting of lotteries is the same offense for which he is now being prosecuted under the indictment sought to be quashed”
Establishes the factual basis of Johns's claim that he was compelled to testify about the exact conduct for which he was later indicted.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohns was charged with murder in the first degree and attended a preliminary hearing on that charge. At the hearing, he voluntarily took the witness s…
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 Motion To Quash Indictment cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, having been indicted for the offense of conducting a lottery, filed and presented his motion to quash.
The motion to quash in effect alleges that prior to the date of the indictment the accused, being charged with the crime of murder in the first degree, attended a preliminary hearing held before the County Judge inquiring into the charge of murder in the first degree then pending against the accused; that at such preliminary hearing he voluntarily took the witness stand and testified in his own behalf; that on cross examination he was required, over his objection and protest, to testify as to his connection with the conducting of lotteries. That such connection by him with the conducting of lotteries is the same offense for which he is now being prosecuted under the indictment sought to be quashed, and contended that he was immune from prosecution for the same offense under the provisions of Section 932.29 Fla. Statutes 1941 (same F.S.A.). The motion was denied and the trial resulted in conviction. Defendant appealed and challenges the correctness of the denial of the motion to quash.
On the face of the motion it is apparent that the investigation proceeding or trial at and on which he was required to *722testify was not the violation of any of the statutes of this State against bribery, burglary, larceny, gaming or gambling or any of the statutes against the illegal sale of spirituous, vinous or malt liquors.
It is, therefore, clear that the testimony of the accused, having been given on a preliminary hearing or investigation upon a charge of murder in the first degree, did not bring the accused within the purview of the immunity afforded by the statute, supra.
No error being made to appear, the judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State ex rel. Mitchell v. Kelly, 71 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1954)…the subject of conspiracy to violate the gambling laws and points out that “conspiracy” is not mentioned in this statute. Therefore, he claims, that statute has no applicability and in support of this position he cites Johns v. State, 157 Fla. 721, 27 So. 2d 75; State ex rel. Benemovsky v. Sullivan, Fla., 37 So. 2d 907; People v. Rockola, 339 Ill. 474, 171 N.E. 559, 69 A.L.R. 852; Doyle v. Hofstader, 257 N.Y. 244, 177 N.E. 489, 87 A.L.R. 418. The State contends that the statute does apply to the situation…1 / 2
-
State v. Sullivan, 37 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 1948)…t. Criminal communism is not included in the crimes for which prosecution is waived in return for testimony given and we are aware of no theory under which we would be warranted in extending it to a prosecution for criminal communism. Johns v. State,157 Fla. 721, 27 So. 2d 75. There is no language in Section 932.29, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., that would authorize us to extend its terms to other prosecutions than the ones enumerated in the act and we are cited to no other statute that proposes to do so.…
-
State v. Grech, 219 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…pon an investigation of the crime of murder. Since that was not one of the crimes listed in the statute (§ 932.29), Grech could not, by testifying there, gain immunity under the statute. State v. Schroeder, Fla. 1959, 112 So. 2d 257; Johns v. State, 157 Fla. 721, 27 So. 2d 75. Moreover, if the Broward grand jury investigation on which Grech testified had been of one of the crimes listed in the statute, the witness would not have gained immunity from prosecution for the offenses with which he was charged in…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence