Coulson v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Coulson v. State

149 So. 521, 110 Fla. 279

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMay 22, 1933

Docket1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 149 So. 521 (Coulson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coulson v. State, 149 So. 521, 110 Fla. 279 (Fla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Davis, C. J.

This is a writ of error prosecuted to a judgment of conviction for violation of the State prohibition laws against the sale, manufacture or possession of intoxicating liquors, second offense. See Section 7630 C. G.. L„ 5486 R. G. S.

The Attorney General concedes that the judgment of conviction cannot stand because the verdict of the jury is fatally defective in that it did not expressly determine separately the historical fact of the plaintiff in error’s first conviction, as alleged in the Circuit Court indictment.

When a person is indicted and tried for a violation of the intoxicating liquor law as a second offender under Section 7630 C. G. L., 5486 R. G. S., the jury should expressly determine separately the question of the historical fact of the defendant’s former conviction as alleged. Benson v. State, 88 Fla. 103, 101 Sou. Rep. 231. The verdict in this case is simply, “We the Jurors find the defendant guilty of first and second count James ITobbs, Foreman.” We hold, in line with the case above cited and the contention of plaintiff in error, that under such a verdict no judgment of conviction for a second offense violation of the liquor law was authorized, therefore this writ of error is well taken and the judgment must be reversed' and the cause remanded with directions to have such appropriate proceedings as may be in accordance with law.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Ellis and TERRELL, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and'BuFORD, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Davis, C. J.

This is a writ of error prosecuted to a judgment of conviction for violation of the State prohibition laws against the sale, manufacture or possession of intoxicating liquors, second offense. See Section 7630 C. G.. L„ 5486 R. G. S.

The Attorney General concedes that the judgment of conviction cannot stand because the verdict of the jury is fatally defective in that it did not expressly determine separately the historical fact of the plaintiff in error’s first conviction, as alleged in the Circuit Court indictment.

When a person is indicted and tried for a violation of the intoxicating liquor law as a second offender under Section 7630 C. G. L., 5486 R. G. S., the jury should expressly determine separately the question of the historical fact of the defendant’s former conviction as alleged. Benson v. State, 88 Fla. 103, 101 Sou. Rep. 231. The verdict in this case is simply, “We the Jurors find the defendant guilty of first and second count James ITobbs, Foreman.” We hold, in line with the case above cited and the contention of plaintiff in error, that under such a verdict no judgment of conviction for a second offense violation of the liquor law was authorized, therefore this writ of error is well taken and the judgment must be reversed' and the cause remanded with directions to have such appropriate proceedings as may be in accordance with law.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Ellis and TERRELL, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and'BuFORD, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 So. 521, 110 Fla. 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coulson-v-state-fla-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack