Skip to main content

Goode v. State

Citations

  • 50 Fla. 45

Syllabus

<p>1. Among other things, the term ex post facto law includes every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence in order to convict the offender.</p> <p>2. It is the general rule, in construing statutes, that construction is favored which gives effect to every clause and every part of the statute, thus producing a consistent and harmonious whole, and a construction which would leave without effect any part of the language used should be rejected if an interpretation can be found which will give it effect; yet, however important it is to give significance and effect to every word, clause and sentence in a statute, less regard is to be paid to the words used than the policy which dictates the act.'</p> <p>B. Section 3 of Chapter 4930 of the Laws of 1901, which provides that “in the trial of violations of Sections 1 and 2 of this act, it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant had any interest in the money received by a defendant for whiskey or liquor delivered by him, but proof of the delivery of liquor by a defendant and the receipt of money therefor by him shall be sufficient prima facie evidence of the ownership of said liquor by a defendant,” has the effect of modifying the rule of evidence enunciated in Anderson v. State, 32 Fla. 242, 13 South. Rep. 435, by making proof of the delivery of. whiskey toi a person by a defendant, and the receipt of money therefor by him, prima facie evidence of the ownership of said whiskey by the defendant and thereby casting upon him the burden of rebutting the legal presumption.</p> <p>4. In a prosecution for violation of the local option law the crime may be proved by showing a systematic course of trade by the defendant as well as by showing a single act.</p> <p>5. Evidence of circumstances tending to connect the accused with the commission of the alleged crime, even though’ inconclusive, is

Judges: Cockrell, Hocker, Parkhill, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

18 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.