Lashley v. State
| Decision Date | 20 October 1953 |
| Citation | 67 So.2d 648 |
| Parties | LASHLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Cornett, Turner, Duncan & Leath, Panama City, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Mark R. Hawes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction rendered by the Circuit Court of Bay County, Florida, upon a verdict of the jury finding the appellant guilty of operating a house of ill fame resorted to for the purpose of prostitution or lewdness.
According to the evidence upon which the conviction rested two air force police investigators, Morrison and Evans, both incognito, in company with two deputy sheriffs of the county, drove one evening to a jook joint know as Lashley's Place, that was operated by the defendant and that had been placed 'off limits' for soldiers stationed at a nearby army airfield. When they reached their destination, Morrison and Evans, who were then dressed in civilian clothes, entered the place and ordered liquid refreshments. While waiting to be served Morrison had a conversation with the defendant about 'where were all the women' and 'what was the price,' to which Lashley replied that 'we don't have all there'; that a certain woman employee in the place 'could be had' but that the price would have to be 'figured out among yourselves.' Morrison and Evans then conversed with the woman who had been pointed out by Lashley and 'asked her what the price was and she said $7.00.' After further conversation between Morrison and the woman involving more intimate details of the transaction the woman asked the defendant if it would 'be all right for her to take $10.00 and stay 45 minutes down the road' to which Lashley gave an affirmative answer. Evans then asked Lashley if he could accompany Morrison and the woman on the expedition, to which Lashley replied, 'No, one can; both of you can't go with her.'
After this conversation Morrison gave the woman employee a 'marked' ten-dollar bill which she took to a back room in the place that was occupied by her as a bedroom. Then she and Morrison drove away in the car to a location that had been previously agreed upon by Morrison and members of the sheriff's office. When they reached the spot Morrison turned the woman over to two deputy sheriffs of the county who took her into custody.
Upon this and other evidence, including evidence that the general reputation of 'Lashley's Place' for lewdness and immorality was bad, the jury returned a verdict of guilty against the defendant.
The first question presented on this appeal by the defendant goes to the court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress the testimony of the prosecuting witness, Morrison, on the ground of entrapment. We find no reversible error in the court's ruling. It is generally held that 'this manner of obtaining such evidence bears merely upon its credibility, not its admissibility.' 20 Am.Jur., Evidence, sec. 400. 'Where the evidence shows an intention on the part of the accused to commit the crime charged, evidence obtained by entrapment is admissible, and this is true even though the witnesses acted as decoys.' Wharton's Criminal Evidence, Vol. I, 11th Ed., sec. 378. As the general rule is stated in 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 45: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. State
...See Dickinson; Lashley v. State, 67 So.2d 648 (Fla.1953). Explaining the subjective test for entrapment, the Court in Russell 411 U.S. at 438, 93 S.Ct. at 1646 observed: Sorrells and Sherman both recognize "that the fact that officers or employees of the Government merely afford opportuniti......
-
Bauer v. State, 86-753
...charged, his conviction will not be vitiated by Cardwell's conduct furnishing an opportunity to commit the offense. See Lashley v. State, 67 So.2d 648 (Fla.1953); Spencer v. State, 263 So.2d 282 (Fla.App. 1st, On December 1, 1973, agent Cardwell approached Kimmons pursuant to plan and asked......
-
State v. Perez
...Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 78 S.Ct. 819, 2 L.Ed.2d 848 (1958); Bell v. State, 369 So.2d 932 (Fla.1979); Lashley v. State, 67 So.2d 648 (Fla.1953). But where the defendant is predisposed to commit the crime, no amount of inducement, short of being so outrageous as to violate due......
-
Jackson v. State
...been made to clearly appear. State v. Rouse, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 79; Blackshear v. State, Fla.App.1971, 246 So.2d 173; Lashley v. State, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 648; and Koptyra v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 628. The judgment of conviction for possession and sale of narcotics is affirmed......