The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1880-10-05

COuFtS CEC8tS3 ytOtCub t<utyt9e
he's trutkfulRess aad<f Oath and then remarks
that the difficulty \ In the application Of the
test In this case Il h not difficult as the Legis-
iature has fully determined H.
Section IS, Chapter Of Chapter 1881, pro-
vides that whOsoever keeps house of il-tame,
resorted to Tor the purpose of prostitution or
lewdness, shall be punished by imprisonment
in The county Jail not exceeding one year
thus constituting the crime under our statutes
misdemeanor, which does not disqualify per-
son from becoming witness The law CThomp.
Dig, 1857 does name the crimes the conviction
for which shall exclude the person from bang
GitRess or giCing evidence, thus establishing the
meaning of the term infamous crimes, as used In
section of the Declaration of Rights. The
offences thus named are the crimes OF murder,
perjury, piracy, forgery, larceny, robbery, arson,
sodomy or buggery.
We have, then, in this State legislative declar-
alton of the crimes which are infamous. This
statute was enacted in the year 1s45 and has ever
since remained in force. 1t is general, and pro-
vides in effect that any person convicted of the
crimes mentioned shall be excluded from being
a witness, and from giving evidence either in
person or by deposition in any suit or proceed
ing civil or criminal, in any court or before any
jury Whether or not any other crimes are infa-
nous, those mentioned in it, be they felOnies or
msdemeanors, are So 1t was not enacted with
any exclusive application TO a provision of or
ganic law, even similar to that in the section OF
the Declaration OF Rights quoted. The particular
object in the mind of the Legislature when en-
acting it was TO settle who should testify in
causes between the State and individuals, or be-
tween one person and another In enacting it,
however, and deciding what crimes convic-
r :c,v IL
tied for all purposes what are infamous crimes,
as, according to the standard authorities, crimes
which produce this disability are Infamous.
The term infamous crimes as used in the
section of the Bill of Rights quoted, and in Sec
ton A of Article IA, cannot with any reason be
claimed to have different meanings. The inla-
nous crimes which the former section proposes
TO regulate the prosecution of are certainly the
same infamous crimes which the latter section
proposes the conviction of shall have certain
effect 1t would be a strange rule that would
give to this term, or any other term in criminal
law used in the same instrument under such cir
cumstances. different meanings. 1t is an ordi-
nary term in criminal law, and the difficulty"
of correct application has been solved by
our Legislature.
By the statute, then, larceny is an Infamous
crime" not any particular class of larceny,
bit any and all ldrcenies No exception or
distinction is made by the statute, nor is any
made by the Constitution. Courts are not author
lied to make them. In fact, the special excep-
ton made as to petit larceny, in the section
quoted from the Bill of Rights, indicates that
the trainers OF the Constitution regarded even
petit larceny as an infamous crime, and consid-
cred that the exception was necessary to exempt
it from the general requirement of the section
that infamous crimes should be prosecuted by in
dictment.
The conclusion then is, even if the Legislature
meant that no conviction OF larceny should pre-
vent person from voting unless the larceny was
an infamous crime, that all arcenies are infamous
crimes, and therefore the conviction by any com
petent court OF person of any larceny, prevents
the person convicted from voting, unless he shall
have been pardoned or restored to civil rights l
am unable TO sec how any other conclusion can
be arrived at
A conviction of person of larceny by JUS
tce of the Peace Court acting within its jurisdic
ton under the provisions Of the act entitled AN
act 10 regulate Criminal Proceedings before JUS
tees of the Peace" approved March 2nd, 1877,
is as effectual to produce the disability as con-
viction by Circuit Court acting within its juris-
dcton.
The language in the opinion of Judge Van
ton of Section Is of Chapter 8 of Chapter 1887,
thus constituting the crime chat of which
King was chargedD under our statutes a INSIDE
meanOr, which does not disquafy person from
becoming Witness is nothing more than
statement that our law has not given TO mis-
demeanors as class the effect to disquay
person from being witness. Neither, may
remark, has it given the effect to teOnies as a
class The great mass of ieones has no such
effect attending a conviction. Had each OF the
offences mentioned in the section referred 10 as
specifying the infamous crimes been subsequent
ly made misdeIneanor, or subdivided into mis-
demeanors and telonies, conviction Of any grade
of any one OF these specified offences woulu still
have the disqualifying effect. Judge VanValken
burgh, Immediately after using the language re-
ferred to, names larceny as an infamous crime.
l have the honor to be, respectfully,
GEO. P. RANEY, Attorney General.