Johnson v. State
Decision Date | 09 July 1946 |
Citation | 157 Fla. 685,27 So.2d 276 |
Parties | JOHNSON v. STATE. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Sept. 12, 1946.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lee County; W. T. Harrison Judge.
W. D. Bell, of Miami, and R. Percy Jones and E. M Magaha, both of Fort Myers, for appellant.
J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., and Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant being informed against by an information in three counts, each count charging violation of Sec. 849.09, Florida Statutes 1941, same F.S.A., was tried and convicted under each of the three counts of the information.
On hearing for motion for new trial the court denied the motion as to the conviction under counts 1 and 2 of the information but granted the motion as to the third count on the ground 'that the verdict is not sustained by the proof.' The third count of the information charged that Marion F. Johnson on the 28th day of July, 1945, in Lee County, Florida 'did unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession lottery tickets commonly known as bolita tickets, which said lottery was for money and which lottery tickets represented an interest in a lottery scheme or device not yet played.' There was no evidence that the accused had in his possession lottery tickets at the time alleged in the information.
The judgment of the court was as follows:
'You having been tried by a jury and convicted of the crime of Conducting a Lottery, as charged in the first and second counts of the information on file herein, the court therefore adjudges you to be guilty of the crime of Conducting a Lottery, as charged in the first and second counts of the information on file herein, it is therefore the judgment of the court and the sentence of the law that you, Marion F. Johnson, for your said offense, do be confined by imprisonment at hard labor in the State Prison of the State of Florida, for a period or term of eighteen (18) months, on each of said counts, to run concurrently.'
Prior to trial defendant, through his counsel, filed motion to quash the information. A part of the motion to quash attacked the sufficiency of the information upon the following ground:
'1. Each count of the information is vague, indefinite and uncertain and does not sufficiently apprise the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation against him to enable him to prepare his defense thereto or to protect him in case of an acquittal or conviction upon said count from again being put in jeopardy for the same offense.
'2. Each count of said information is duplicitious.
3. Each count of said information is multifarious.
'4. Each count of said information fails to charge any offense punishable by the laws of the State of Florida.
'5. The third count of said information does not show that the lottery tickets were tickets in a live lottery or a lottery yet to be played.
,
and also challenged the validity of the information upon the grounds (a) that the information was based upon evidence procured under a purported search warrant issued upon an insufficient affidavit; (b) that the affidavit and search warrant were insufficient to justify the search of a dwelling house 'in that they do not allege that the said premises were in part used for some business purpose, such as a store, shop, saloon, restaurant, hotel or boarding or lodging house, or that same was being used for the unlawful sale, possession or manufacture of intoxicating liquors or that stolen or embezzled property was contained therein, as provided by Section 933.18, F.S.A.; wherefore the defendant charges that the said purported affidavit and purported search warrant were null and void and that the evidence obtained thereby was illegally obtained and in contravention of the constitutional rights of the defendant aforesaid, and that the evidence so used was used by the State of Florida, its officers and agents for the purpose of obtaining said information and that said information is based upon said evidence so illegally obtained; for which reason defendant avers that the said information is null, void and of no force and effect, and prays the judgment of this court thereon in like manner as if he had pleaded in abatement or in bar of said prosecution and that said information be quashed'; (c) that the evidence upon which said information was based was obtained by the unlawful execution of a search warrant in 'that officers and agents of the State of Florida in their efforts to serve said illegal warrant did break open the outer door of defendant's dwelling house, without giving due notice of their authority and purpose prior to their entry therein, as is required by Section 933.09, F.S.A., and that the said officers and agents of the State of Florida, in executing the said purported search warrant willfully exceeded their authority, contrary to Section 933.17, F.S.A.'; (d) because the information 'is based upon evidence obtained by virtue of a purported search warrant issued upon a purported affidavit of Wilford C. Mathis, a deputy sheriff, for the search of the dwelling house of the defendant, in which it is alleged: 'affiant says further that the aforesaid Marion F. Johnson uses said dwelling house in part for business purposes, to-wit: the maintenance of an office for the practice of medicine wherein he practices said profession and also the operation of the aforesaid gambling and lottery business'; defendant avers that said purported affidavit was insufficient as a basis upon which to issue the purported search warrant, in that it erroneously assumes that an office for the practice of medicine is such a use as set forth in Section 933.18, F.S.A.; and defendant further avers that the purported search warrant was not limited in its scope to the search of the said office of the defendant in said building and that the search and seizure conducted by virtue of said purported search warrant and the purported evidence obtained was outside the office of the defendant in his said dwelling house.'
The pertinent part of the affidavit upon which the search warrant issued is as follows:
The pertinent part of the search warrant is as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lodge 1858, Am. Federation of Government Emp. v. Webb
...909, 910 (1947); Hartford Acci. & Indem. Co. v. City of Tulare, 30 Cal.2d 832, 836, 186 P.2d 121, 123 (1947); Johnson v. State, 157 Fla. 685, 693, 27 So.2d 276, 282 (1946); Cert. denied, 329 U.S. 799, 67 S.Ct. 491, 91 L.Ed. 683 (1947); Woodroof v. City of Nashville, 183 Tenn. 483, 486, 192 ......
-
State v. Dixon, 7173
...rel. Hancock v. Love, Circuit Judge, 1940, 143 Fla. 883, 197 So. 534; Johns v. State, 1940, 144 Fla. 256, 197 So. 791; Johnson v. State, 1946, 157 Fla. 685, 27 So.2d 276. F.S. Sec. 909.02 F.S.A., provides that '(p)leas to an indictment or information, other than pleas of nolo contendere, gu......
-
Newberry v. State
...affirmed. Brown v. State, 380 So.2d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); State v. Dominguez, 367 So.2d 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Johnson v. State, 157 Fla. 685, 27 So.2d 276 (1946). Finally, with respect to the search and seizure issue, appellant challenges the validity of the search warrant. Appellant c......
-
Anderson v. State
...testimony was perjured and did nothing to correct the testimony, the indictment should have been dismissed. In Johnson v. State, 157 Fla. 685, 694, 27 So.2d 276, 281 (1946), cert. denied, 329 U.S. 799, 67 S.Ct. 491, 91 L.Ed. 683 (1947), this Court held that courts may not inquire into the s......