Title: McLaughlin v. State
Citation: 153 So. 2d 1
Docket Number: 31906
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: May 1, 1963

153 So. 2d 1 (1963)
Dewey McLAUGHLIN and Connie Hoffman also known as Connie Gonzalez, Appellants,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellees.
No. 31906.

Supreme Court of Florida.
May 1, 1963.
Rehearing Denied May 30, 1963.
Robert Ramer, H.L. Braynon and G.E. Graves, Jr., Miami, for appellants.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and James G. Mahorner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
CALDWELL, Justice.
This cause is here on appeal from the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County. The trial court directly passed upon the validity of a State statute and we, therefore, have jurisdiction.
Defendants are charged with having violated Fla. Stat. § 798.05, F.S.A.[1] in that *2 "the said Dewey McLaughlin, being a negro man, and the said Connie Hoffman, being a white woman, who were not married to each other did habitually live in and occupy in the nighttime the same room." The defendants moved to quash the information on the ground that the aforesaid statute was in violation of the Federal and State Constitutions. The motions were denied. Defendants were then arraigned and entered pleas of not guilty. The jury trial terminated in a verdict of guilty, a sentence of thirty days in the county jail and a fine of $150 for each defendant.
The defendants contend they were denied equal protection of the laws because "Firstly, the law provides a special criminal prohibition on cohabitation solely for persons who are of different races; or, secondly, if this special statute is equated with the general fornication statute, the higher penalties are imposed on the person whose races differ than would be applicable to persons of the same race who commit the same acts."
In Pace v. Alabama,[2] the Supreme Court of the United States upheld an Alabama Statute[3] prohibiting interracial marriage, adultery or fornication, against the contention that it denied equal protection of the law. Another Alabama Statute[4] prohibited adultery or fornication between members of the same race but provided a less severe maximum penalty. The Supreme Court speaking through Mr. Justice Field held:
The appellants seek adjudication of their right to engage in integrated illicit cohabitation upon the same terms as are imposed upon the segregated lapse. But, as was admitted by counsel in argument, this appeal is a mere way station on the route to the United States Supreme Court where defendants hope that, in the light of supposed social and political advances, they *3 may find legal endorsement of their ambitions.
This Court is obligated by the sound rule of stare decisis and the precedent of the well written decision in Pace, supra. The Federal Constitution, as it was when construed by the United States Supreme Court in that case, is quite adequate but if the new-found concept of "social justice" has out-dated "the law of the land" as therein announced and, by way of consequence, some new law is necessary, it must be enacted by legislative process or some other court must write it.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C.J., and TERRELL, THOMAS, THORNAL and O'CONNELL, JJ., concurring.
DREW, J., agrees to judgment.
[1]  Fla. Stat. § 798.05, F.S.A.

"Any negro man and white woman, or any white man and negro woman, who are not married to each other, who shall habitually live in and occupy in the nighttime the same room shall each be punished by imprisonment not exceeding twelve months, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars."
[2]  106 U.S. 583, 1 S. Ct. 637, 27 L. Ed. 207 (1883).
[3]  Ala. Code of 1876, § 4189 (now Ala. Code, Title 14, § 360 [1958]).
[4]  Ala. Code of 1876, § 4184 (now Ala. Code, Title 14, § 16 [1958]).