Thomas v. State
39 Fla. 437 (1897)
Rule of Law:
To constitute the crime of lewd and lascivious cohabitation, the evidence must demonstrate not merely occasional secret acts of incontinency, but an open dwelling or living together by unmarried individuals as if they were in a marital relationship, causing public scandal.
Facts:
- On February 21, 1897, between midnight and 1 AM, Sheriff J. R. Turner and Deputy W. P. Edwards went to the house where Mary Long resided.
- Upon arriving, Sheriff Turner believed Henry Thomas was inside the house with Mary Long and heard them get out of bed.
- Sheriff Turner observed someone attempting to get through a trap door, and after breaking down the door, found Henry Thomas partly dressed and Mary Long in her night clothes in a room containing only one bed.
- Allen Long, Mary Long's brother, stated that Henry Thomas had brought groceries to the house on several occasions, and he and Mary would go into a room, cook, eat, and stay there with the door shut.
- Aaron Adams testified he had seen Henry Thomas in Mary Long's yard at night 'quite a lot of times'.
- Lucy Suber, a neighbor, testified that she never saw Henry Thomas at the house or in the yard.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas and Long were charged by information and tried in the Criminal Court of Record of Yolusia County for the crime of lewd and lascivious cohabitation.
- They were convicted and sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment in the State penitentiary.
- Thomas and Long filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court.
- Thomas and Long (appellants) sought reversal of their conviction on a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does evidence primarily showing one act of secret lewdness, combined with occasional presence and closed-door gatherings, suffice to prove "lewd and lascivious cohabitation" under a statute requiring open dwelling together as if the conjugal relation existed?
Opinions:
Majority - Taylor, J.
No, evidence primarily showing one act of secret lewdness, combined with occasional presence and closed-door gatherings, is insufficient to prove "lewd and lascivious cohabitation" under the statute. The Court reiterated its prior construction of the statute, which requires proof of "a dwelling or living together, or cohabitation, that is lewd or lascivious; it must show that the parties dwell together as if the conjugal relation existed between them." The statute's purpose is to prohibit the public scandal and disgrace of such open living arrangements and prevent indecent examples that corrupt public morals. The Court emphasized that "proofs of occasional acts of incontinency will not of themselves sustain the charge." In this case, the evidence tended to show only one act of secret lewdness, but completely lacked any proof of the open dwelling or cohabiting together as though a marriage relationship existed, which is essential to the offense. Therefore, the conviction could not stand.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the standard for proving lewd and lascivious cohabitation in Florida, distinguishing it from mere illicit sexual intercourse. By emphasizing the requirement of an open dwelling or living together "as if the conjugal relation existed," the court sets a high bar for prosecution and limits the application of the statute to public conduct causing scandal, rather than private acts of incontinency. This precedent protects individuals from conviction based solely on isolated secret encounters, requiring instead a pattern of open behavior that mimics marriage without its legal foundation, thus impacting future cases by narrowing the scope of what constitutes this specific crime.
