WILL STRACHAAN, ALIAS WILL STRONG,
v.
STATE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Will Strachaan was convicted under an information charging him with being unlawfully connected with a lottery. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his conviction, holding that the information was fatally defective because it failed to allege that the lottery was for money or other thing of value and failed to specify the manner, means, or extent of his connection to the lottery.
The information was fatally defective and insufficient to support conviction. An information must allege that a lottery is for money or other thing of value and must state the manner, means, and extent of the defendant's alleged involvement, not merely conclude that he was connected with it.
“The Second Count of the Information, under which plaintiff in error was convicted, charges no offense whatever against the laws of the State of Florida. Therefore, motion in arrest of judgment should have been granted.”
Establishes that the information was so defective it did not charge any crime under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWill Strachaan, also known as Will Strong, was informed against in three counts. He was convicted under Count Two, which charged that on the last day …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Lottery cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, plaintiff in error here, was informed against by information in three counts. He was convicted under count Two which operated as an acquittal *737under each of the other counts. Count Two was in the following language: . ■
“Charles A. Morehead, County Solicitor for the County of Dade, prosecuting for the State of Florida, in the said County, under oath, information makes that Will Strachaan, alias Will Strong, 538 N. W. 19th St., Miami, of the County of Dade and State of Florida, on the last day of May, in the year of our Lord, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty-three, in the County and State aforesaid, unlawfully and feloniously was connected with a certain, Lottery, a more particular description of which said Lottery is to the County Solicitor unknown, contrary to the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.”
It is unnecessary for us to discuss any of the assignments of error except those which attack the sufficiency of the information.
The Second Count of the Information, under which plaintiff in error was convicted, charges no offense whatever against the laws of the State of Florida. Therefore, motion in arrest of judgment should have been granted.
The count under consideration did not state that the lottery referred to was a lottery for money or other thing of value and was, therefore, under the holding of this Court in D’Alessandro v. State, in which opinion was filed February 27, 1934, reported 153 Sou. 95, fatally defective. Aside from this, this Count of the Information totally fails to charge the manner, means or extent in which the accused was alleged to have been connected with the lottery. It charged a conclusion and alleged no fact from which the conclusion could be drawn. Such a charge cannot constitute a basis for a judgment of conviction. It in no way protects the defendant from a second prosecution for the same offense. .
*738For the reasons stated, the judgment should be reversed and it is so ordered.
Reversed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J. J., concur.
Davis, C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Rene Pinillos for the Estate of Margarita Pinillos v. Cedars OF Lebanon Hosp. Corp. & the Fla. Patients Comp. Fund, 403 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1981)…mine whether such a crisis exists. The trial judge took judicial notice of evidence negating a crisis, evidence which was presented in a prior unrelated case, but this is not properly part of the record. See Atlas Land Corp. v. Norman, 116 Fla. 800, 156 So. 885 (1934). This Court is left in a vacuum as the courts in Jones v. State Board of Medicine, 97 Idaho 859, 555 P. 2d 399 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 914, 97 S.Ct. 2173, 53 L.Ed.2d 223 (1977), and Oregon Medical Association v. Rawls, 276 Or. 1101, 55…
-
Hillsborough Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. Pub. Emps. Relations Comm'n & Hillsborough Cnty. Governmental Emps. Ass'n, Inc., 424 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…notice of the records of another court in a totally separate and distinct case.4 Numerous cases have held that an appellate court may not take judicial notice of the record in a separate proceeding. In Atlas Land Corporation v. Norman, 116 Fla. 800, 156 So. 885 (Fla.1934), the Supreme Court explained the reasons why such judicial notice would not be taken. The circuit court whether sitting as a court of law or as a court of equity, is a court of record. As such, its judgments or decrees are to be supporte…
-
Fletcher Fuller and Abner Fuller v. State, 159 Fla. 200 (Fla. 1947)…r other thing of value” render each of the counts fatally defective and invalid and as a consequence the judgments of conviction entered below must by this Court be reversed. Counsel cite and rely on our holdings in Strachaan v. State, 116 Fla. 736, 156 So. 885; D’Alessandro v. State, 116 Fla. 703, 156 So. 703; Farrell v. State, 135 Fla. 736, 185 So. 873. Count 4 charges that the appellants between the 10th day of November 1943 and November 10th 1945, did transmit lottery tickets and coupons representing…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- D'Alessandro v. State, 114 Fla. 70 (Fla. 1934)