Langford v. State

168 So. 528, 124 Fla. 428, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1137
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMay 28, 1936
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 168 So. 528 (Langford 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
Langford v. State, 168 So. 528, 124 Fla. 428, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1137 (Fla. 1936).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The writ of error brings for review a judgment of conviction of the statutory offense denounced by *429 Sections 5407 R. G. S., 7550 C. G. L., when committed by a man and a woman not married to one another.

The information charged the offense substantially in the language of the state and was sufficient. The statute denounces two kinds of acts. One is that of a man and a woman not being married to each other lewdly and lasciviously associating and cohabiting together. This unlawful act occurs when a man and a woman not being married to each other live together after the manner of husband and wife insofar as sexual relations are concerned. They do not have to hold themselves out as husband and wife, but if they live together in a house occupying generally the same bed at night and frequently engaging in sexual intercourse while occupying such bed together, the offense is committed. That is the offense which was charged in the information. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.

The other offense denounced by this Section is open lewd and lascivious conduct and may be committed by husband and wife as well as persons of the opposite sex or same sex, whether married or unmarried to each other, or it may be committed by either a man or woman alone, but so openly as to be offensive. We are not concerned here with this offense.

There was no error in refusing to give charges 1, 2 and 3 asked by the defendant because insofar as those requested charges correctly stated the law they had been covered by the Court’s general charge.

• No reversible error being made to appear, the judgment should be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. *430 Whitfield, C. J., concurs in the opinion and judgment. Brown and Davis, J. J., dissent.

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

Related

Wildman v. State
25 So. 2d 808 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1946)
Watson v. State
194 So. 640 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1940)
Motor Transit Co. v. Studstill
176 So. 769 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 So. 528, 124 Fla. 428, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langford-v-state-fla-1936.