Grossman v. State
| Citation | 59 So.2d 59 |
| Parties | GROSSMAN v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 23 May 1952 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Pine & Taylor, Miami, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and William A. O'Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was tried and convicted for operating a gambling house. He was sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000 or in default thereof to be imprisoned at hard labor in the State penitentiary for a term of six months. This appeal was prosecuted from that judgment.
The sole point for determination is whether or not there was sufficient legal evidence to support the conveiction and judgment.
We have reached the conclusion that this question requires a negative answer. The locus in quo was known as the Ritz Drug Store located at 500 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach. There is no direct proof that defendant had any proprietary or other connection with the said drug store. To convict one of operating a gambling house it must be shown that the place was used as such with the owner's knowledge or consent and that some game or device condemned as gambling has been habitually indulged in there. Creash v. State, 131 Fla. 111, 179 So. 149; Millman v. State, Fla., 55 So.2d 713; State v. Hicks, 101 Kan. 782, 168 P. 861; White v. State, 115 Ga. 570, 41 S.E. 986.
The evidence not only fails to meet the rule approved in these cases but is deficient in other respects, for which the judgment must be and is hereby reversed.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perlman v. State, 71-824
...knowledge, direction or consent (c) habitual gambling has been conducted. Creash v. State, 1938, 131 Fla. 111, 179 So. 149; Grossman v. State, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 59; Millman v. State, Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 713. It should be noted, however, that the crime proscribed is not the gambling as such ......
-
Ferguson v. State
...played or carried on at a place owned or subject to a defendant's control, with that defendant's knowledge and consent. Grossman v. State, 59 So.2d 59 (Fla.1952); Millman v. State, 55 So.2d 713 (Fla.1951); Creash v. State, 131 Fla. 111, 179 So. 149 (1938); Toll v. State, 40 Fla. 169, 23 So.......
-
State v. Ferguson, 77-973
...under the first part of the statute requires proof that gambling has been habitually carried on at the place in question, Grossman v. State, 59 So.2d 59 (Fla.1952); Mart v. State, 350 So.2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Gaetano v. State, 273 So.2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), such proof does not seem......
-
Gaetano v. State
...played or carried on there. Creash v. State, 131 Fla. 111, 179 So. 149, 152; see Millman v. State, Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 713; Grossman v. State, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 59.' Stanger v. State, 117 So.2d 417, 418 (Fla.App.1960); cf. Perlman v. State, 269 So.2d 385 (Fla.App.1972). 'Habitually' has bee......