Adams v. State
| Decision Date | 21 May 1943 |
| Parties | ADAMS v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Hillsborough County; John R Himes, Judge.
Cyrus W Fields and John Branch, both of Tampa, for appellant.
J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., and Woodrow M. Melvin, Asst. Atty., Gen for appellee.
Defendant was charged by information with the offense of conducting a lottery described in the first count as 'bolita', in the second as 'Parlay'.
Defendant pled not guilty.
The facts are that two deputy sheriffs entered defendant's place of business in Tampa to arrest him on a certain 'Bolita' warrant from which charge he was later dismissed. While there, the deputies observed the defendant talking over the telephone, a lady standing beside him, and a piece of paper in his hand. One of the deputies heard the defendant calling numbers over the phone. The other deputy could not hear what defendant said. The deputies thereupon arrested him for the sale and possession of bolita. The paper which they took from his hand had numbers written on it. The paper had been signed by her in defendant's presence and was introduced into evidence. The lady did not testify at the trial.
The jury convicted defendant; the court overruled defendant's motion for a new trial and defendant appealed from the judgment.
The appellant poses two questions which are as follows:
'Did the Court commit error in admitting in evidence, over objection of appellant, the affidavit and warrant for arrest of appellant for some other charge, and not the charge for which the appellant was being tried?'
'Did not the Court commit error in admitting into evidence, over objection of appellant, the paper writing containing figures taken from appellant, and bearing the signature of the woman witness present 'Haisman', 208 Pierce Street, in absence of instruction that signature and address was not evidence of guilt of purchasing ticket?'
The warrant and affidavit which were introduced in evidence charged an offense alleged to have been committed on the 16th day of May, 1942, which was prior to the date of the alleged commission of the offense for which appellant was tried and from which conviction this appeal was taken. The admission of these documents in evidence was error and prejudicial to the accused. See Horn v. State, 22 Ala. App. 66, 111 So. 452; State v. Whitney, 43 Idaho 745, 254 P. 525; Gafford v. State, 79 Fla. 581, 84 So. 602.
On the trial officers were permitted to testify that Mrs. Haisman in effect had stated in their presence and in the presence of the defendant that she had bought certain numbers which appeared in her handwriting on the slip of paper, from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. State, 6828
...Fla. 627, 164 So. 354; Rhodes v. State, 1932, 104 Fla. 520, 140 So. 309; West v. State, 1939, 140 Fla. 421, 191 So. 771; Adams v. State, 1943, 153 Fla. 68, 13 So.2d 610. And this is true even though the offenses are similar or of like nature. Denton v. State, 1913, 66 Fla. 87, 62 So. 914; S......
-
Jefferson v. Sweat
...or admission of guilt can be introduced in evidence there must be some proof that the crime charged has been committed. Adams v. State, 153 Fla. 68, 13 So.2d 610. In a charge for arson there must be some evidence of a fire in order to convict. Smith v. State, 135 Fla. 835, 186 So. 203. In H......
-
Drysdale v. State, 74--548
...jury. Schneble v. State, 201 So.2d 881 (Fla.1967); Jefferson v. State, supra; Rowe v. State, 84 So.2d 709 (Fla.1956); Adams v. State, 153 Fla. 68, 13 So.2d 610 (1943); Keir v. State, 152 Fla. 389, 11 So.2d 886 (1943); Parrish v. State, 90 Fla. 25, 105 So. 130 (1925); Robbins v. State, 312 S......
-
Sciortino v. State
...of the corpus delicti. The judgment concerning the appellant Alexander must therefore be reversed and set aside.' In Adams v. State, 1943, 153 Fla. 68, 13 So.2d 610, 611, the facts, as stated in the Court's opinion, were as Two deputy sheriffs entered the defendant's place of business to ar......