State v. Slaton
Citation | 68 So.2d 894 |
Parties | STATE v. SLATON. STATE v. ALRED. |
Decision Date | 15 December 1953 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Bart L. Cohen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Cushman, Gay & Woodard, Miami, for appellees.
Appellants were informed against for violating paragraph one, Section 550.35, Florida Statutes F.S.A., relating to the transmission of racing information for gambling purposes as follows:
The information in both cases was quashed and the state has appealed. The only question presented goes to the sufficiency of the information to state a cause of action. The state contends that this question should have been answered in the affirmative and relies on State v. Ucciferri, Fla., 61 So.2d 374 and State v. Pound, Fla., 49 So.2d 521, to support its contention.
The information in the Ucciferri case was very similar to the information in the present case but the charge in the two cases was entirely different. In the Ucciferri case the question was whether or not the statute, Section 550.35(1), violated the free speech provision of the Federal Constitution. We answered in the negative. The information in the Ucciferri case named the race in which the statute was violated and detailed such other facts as were essential for the defendant to prepare his defense.
The information in this case was as follows:
'That H. S. Slation, of the County of Dade and State of Florida, on the 20th day of March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand and nine hundred and fifty two, in the County and State aforesaid, did unlawfully transmit or communicate to person or persons unknown, the result...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cohen v. State
...construed, can be upheld. The State calls our attention to the fact that this Court has so construed at least two statutes. State v. Slaton, Fla.1953, 68 So.2d 894 (statute prohibited illegal transmission of racing information) and Brent v. State, 1937, 127 Fla. 626, 173 So. 675 (larceny st......
-
State v. Smith
...in construing the subject statute to impliedly require a charge and proof of scienter. As indicated above we so construed statutes in State v. Slaton, supra, Brent v. State, supra, and State v. Diez, supra. We have done so more recently in the case of Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction of......
- State ex rel. Kelly v. Whisnant