Champlin v. StateChamplin v. State
In the Criminal Court of Record of Palm Beach Cоunty, Florida, appellant was charged by information with an offensе under the child molester law, tried, convicted, adjudged guilty and sentenced.
The information was signed by the County Solicitor, and the affidavit attached to the information was signed but not acknowledged by the Solicitor.
During the trial, the complaining witness and other witnesses, all males bеtween 14 and 17 years of age, testified that at various times for a рeriod of two years immediately prior to the filing of the informatiоn, they had separately visited appellant‘s photo studio in Pаlm Beach, on which occasions they viewed pictures of nude men and women committing crime against nature acts, and were shown by appellant and allowed to read sexy books and short stоries which were calculated to, and did, arouse the passiоns of the young men, after which appellant would commit with them the rеprehensible crime against nature. Some of said pictures and books were unlawfully
In his assignments of error, appellant sets forth two grounds of error which are, in essence, as follows:
1. When the Court properly refuses to admit into evidence writings as to preliminary, secondary or collateral matters, is it еrror for the Court to allow witnesses while testifying, to allude to the contents of said writtings?
Since the writings pertained only to preliminary, secondary and collateral matters, the contents thereof cоuld be proven independently by parol evidence, and it was immaterial that the writings themselves were not admitted and were not admissiblе in evidence. 1 Underhill‘s Criminal Evidence, 5th Ed., page 187, and 32 C.J.S., Evidence § 783, page 708.
2. Does the failure of the prosecuting officer of a Criminаl Court of Record to swear to an information, render the information void?
Section 10 of the Declaration of Rights, F.S.A., Article 5, Section 28 of the Constitution of Florida, F.S.A., and
However, the verification is not а substantial part of the information, and is merely to insure good faith in instituting the proceedings. Absence or omission of the required verification is only a formal defect and does not render the information void, and the defect may be waived. 42 C.J.S. Indictments and Informations § 86, page 948.
Appellant having failed to raise this point in the trial court bеfore arraignment and entering his plea of not guilty, plus failing to raise the point in his motion to quash, motion in arrest of judgment, or even in his motiоn for new trial, and having raised it for the first time in his assignments of error, he is deemed to have waived the defect.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
ALLEN, C.J., and SHANNON, J., concur.