Title: Bizzell v. State

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

71 So. 2d 735 (1954)
BIZZELL
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc.
April 6, 1954.
*736 Forsyth Caro and Herbert Latham, Pensacola, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Bart L. Cohen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
MATHEWS, Justice.
In this case the appellant was convicted of the crime of "embezzlement by county officer", covered by F.S. Section 812.10, F.S.A. The information charged that during the month of September, 1952, Harvey Bizzell "Then and there being an officer of Escambia County, Florida, to-wit: the justice of the peace of the first justice of the peace district of aforesaid county, and as such justice of the peace, as part of the duties of such office, was required to receive various and sundry amounts of money belonging to aforesaid county, did, while acting as justice of the peace of aforesaid district and county, in his official capacity and as part of the duty of said office, collect and receive various and sundry amounts of money as cash bonds, which cash bonds were thereafter estreated or forfeited as appearance bonds by aforesaid justice of the peace and which said cash bonds amounted to $4,387.50 for aforesaid period, to wit: the month of September, 1952, * * *." The said information was filed on the 11th day of February, 1953.
The appellant filed a plea of double jeopardy in which he alleged that on the 9th day of February, 1953, a criminal information was filed against him charging "embezzlement by county officer", a copy of which was attached to and made a part of the said plea of double jeopardy, and is as follows:
The appellant alleged that on the 11th day of February, 1953, he entered a plea of not guilty to the charge of the first criminal information and the same came on for trial before a jury of six men duly selected, empaneled and sworn to well and truly try said cause and issues joined between the State of Florida and the defendant. It is alleged the jury was sworn and the taking of testimony was begun and concluded and after the hearing of all of the evidence and the argument of counsel and the charges of the Court, the jury returned a verdict in words and figures as follows:
It is then alleged that the Court did order and adjudge that the defendant "be discharged and go hence without day". A copy of the minutes of the Court were attached and made a part of the plea.
The appellant further alleges that after he was acquitted a new information was filed against him on the same day, February 11, 1953. He alleged that the criminal offense charged in the two informations are one and the same offense and crime. The appellant further alleged that although the first information charged the offense as being on the 9th day of October, 1952, the information also alleges that the offense and the crime committed was committed on various and sundry dates and under the said first information the State had full opportunity to prove all embezzlements by a county officer occurring prior to the filing of the said first information and that to require the said defendant-appellant to go to trial on the second information would force and compel him to be tried for a criminal offense of which he had already been acquitted.
The State demurred to the said plea and the demurrer was sustained. In the order sustaining the demurrer to the plea of double jeopardy, the Court stated:
Section 12 of the Declaration of Rights, F.S.A., contains the following:
The right to be placed in jeopardy only once for the same offense is guaranteed to every citizen. It is not for the purpose of protecting criminals, but is to protect the citizens against the once-existing power of the State, or the sovereign, to continue prosecutions and trials of the same person for the same offense until a conviction is obtained, or the defendant is ruined by the time, expenses and annoyance of such successive prosecutions. This constitutional right stands upon the same basis as those other constitutional rights to be tried by a fair and impartial jury, to demand the nature of and cause of the accusation against him, to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be furnished a copy of the indictment against him. Section 11, Declaration of Rights. These rights curtail and restrain the power of the State. It is more important to preserve them, even though at times a guilty man may go free, than it is to obtain a conviction by ignoring or violating them. The end does not justify the means. Might is not always right. Under our system of constitutional government, the State should not set the example of violating fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all citizens in order to obtain a conviction.
The first information could have charged a particular embezzlement on a particular date. Instead of following this course, the State made its election and charged the county officer with embezzlement of various amounts during January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August and September and up to the 9th day of October, 1952. It charged him "during said months and days of 1952, and on divers dates and times during a period of less than two years prior to the said October 9, 1952" with receiving various and sundry amounts of money in excess of $4,000 and of the value of more than $50. The appellant joined issue on this count by pleading not guilty. A jury was selected and sworn to try the appellant upon the issues joined. The jury found him not guilty. The evidence of the first trial is not before us.
The appellant was placed in jeopardy under the charges against him when the jury was selected and sworn to try the issues. He was placed in jeopardy for embezzling county money during the month of September, 1952, and also for other months and the jury found him not guilty and the Court then adjudged him to be not guilty and ordered that he be discharged and go hence without day. Immediately after the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the Court, the second information was filed.
The main difference between the first information and the second information is that the second information attempts to break the embezzlement down and charge that it occurred only during the month of September, 1952, while the first information charged September as well as other months.
The trial judge quoted from the case of State v. Anders, Fla., 59 So. 2d 776, to the effect that if the facts charged in the second information, if found to be *739 true, warranted a conviction upon a prior information, a prosecution under the second information is barred. Such is the case now presented.
In the case at bar the facts charged in the second information are that the appellant, during the month of September, did while a county officer embezzle money which was the property of Escambia County. If the facts so charged were found to be true they would have warranted a conviction upon the first information which charged that the appellant during all of said months, including the month of September, embezzled various and sundry amounts of money.
It may be that the State found new evidence or on the first trial that material evidence was excluded by the Court or the State did not offer all of its evidence, or any evidence, but such cannot be the basis of ignoring the constitutional rights of the appellant that he should not be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.
In the case of Potter v. State, 91 Fla. 938, 109 So. 91, 92, this Court held:
The State quotes from the opinion in the case of State v. Cootner, Fla., 60 So. 2d 734. That case involved arson where the ownership of the property was material. In that case the first information charged that Cootner burned his own property. He was tried upon that issue. The State failed to prove that the property was the property of Cootner and he was found not guilty under instructions of the Court of burning his own property. A new information was then filed identical with the first information except it alleged that certain personal property which had been burned was the property of Carter Clothing Company, Inc. Cootner had never been on trial for burning the property of Carter Clothing Company, but had been placed in jeopardy on the charge of burning the property of William Cootner. In such a case there was no double jeopardy, because under the first information he was charged with burning the property of Cootner and in the second information he was charged with burning the property of Carter Clothing Company.
In the case now before us the month of September, 1952, and the same money of Escambia County is involved in both informations. The appellant was found not guilty and discharged under the first information and to place him on trial a second time under a new information involving the same money and the same month is a violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant not to be placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense.
The demurrer of the State to the plea of double jeopardy should have been overruled and the appellant discharged. The case is reversed for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
*740 ROBERTS, C.J., and THOMAS, SEBRING and DREW, JJ., concur.
TERRELL, J., dissents.
HOBSON, J., not participating.