Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 568.07 (2025)
Name sufficient proof; competency of witness.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
568.07 Name sufficient proof; competency of witness.—
(1) In every prosecution for a violation of this chapter, proof that the liquor in question was and is known as whiskey, moonshine whiskey, shine, rum, gin, or brandy or by any other similar name or names shall be prima facie evidence that such liquor is intoxicating and contains more than 6.243 percent of alcohol by volume and that such content is intoxicating. Any person who by experience in the past in the handling or use of intoxicating liquors, or who by taste, smell, or the drinking of such liquors, has knowledge as to the intoxicating nature of such liquors may testify as to this opinion, whether such beverage or liquor is or is not intoxicating; and a verdict based upon such testimony shall be valid.
(2) The alcoholic content of any liquor, wine, or beer, or other beverage, may be shown by hydrometer or gravity test made in or away from the presence of the jury by any person who has knowledge of the uses of such instruments, but the production of such evidence shall be optional. The alcoholic content of any liquor or beverage, or compound, which is the subject of any inquiry in any proceedings or prosecution may also be shown by chemical analysis or any other analysis made by and certified by any competent chemist. The sample analyzed may be identified by the sworn testimony of any peace officer or prosecuting officer, that he or she personally delivered to such chemist such sample for analysis and that it was personally taken by him or her from the receptacle containing the beverage, drink, or alcoholic liquor or compound which is the subject of inquiry.
(3) The mode of proof herein provided shall be considered cumulative and not exclusive.
History.—s. 7, ch. 18016, 1937; CGL 1940 Supp. 7648(16); s. 3, ch. 84-299; s. 19, ch. 86-269; s. 49, ch. 91-220; s. 100, ch. 92-291; s. 881, ch. 97-103.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 1943–1955 · leading case: Brown v. State, 13 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1943).
Brown v. State, 13 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1943). “” , Section 568.07 provides in effect that it is sufficient under the information charging violation of law in connection with intoxicating liquors to prove that the liquor was such as is generally known by certain names and, among others, the statute mentions “moonshine whiskey.”
State v. Ellis, 6 Fla. Supp. 151 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Pinellas Cty. 1955). “” Section 568.07, F.S.A., provides in effect that it is sufficient under the information charging violation of law in connection with intoxicating liquors to prove that the liquor was such as is generally known by certain names and, among others, the statute mentions “moonshine…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.