GEORGE VICTER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The appellate court affirmed a conviction for possession of explosives without a license, finding the statute valid and the evidence sufficient. The appellant's arguments regarding the statute's constitutionality, the sufficiency of the information, the denial of a directed verdict, and evidentiary rulings were all rejected.
The court held that the statute is valid and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession of explosives without a license. The court also found no error in the denial of a directed verdict or in the evidentiary rulings.
“The statute involved is valid, and not subject to the infirmities suggested by the appellant.”
Establishes the court's finding on the statute's validity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge Victer was charged with transporting and possessing explosives without a license. A jury acquitted him of transportation but convicted him of p…
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 Directed Verdict Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant George Victer and another were charged in one count of an information with transportation of explosives on a public highway without a license contrary to § 552.12, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and in a second count with possession of explosives without a license, condemned by § 552.101, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. A jury trial resulted in his acquittal on the first count and in his conviction on the second count. Judgment was entered and Victer was sentenced to three years confinement.
The appellant submits a number of points on which reversal is sought. We have considered them in the light of the record and briefs and conclude that they are without merit. The statute involved is valid, and not subject to the infirmities suggested by the appellant. Stripped of its several exceptions which are not applicable here, the statute in brief and plain language makes unlawful the possession of explosives without a license or permit as provided for. Elsewhere the statute defines explosives. The information charged a crime. The court was not in error in refusing to grant a directed verdict. The evidence sufficiently supported the information, as to “explo.-sives.” The ruling of the court on the motion for change of venue was within the sound discretion, of the court, and abuse of discretion was not shown. Remaining points relating to incidents at the trial and certain rulings on evidence have been considered, and we conclude no prejudicial error has been shown.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Victer v. State, 174 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1965)…nsfer to the court having jurisdiction of any matter subject to review when the jurisdiction of another appellate court has been improvidently invoked.” F.A.K. 2.1, subd. a (5) (d), 31 F.S.A. . Victer v. State of Florida, Fla.App., 3rd Dist. (1964) 160 So. 2d 727. . Art. V, See. 4(2), Fla.Const., F.S.A. . State v. Bruno, Fla. (1958) 104 So. 2d 588; P. O. Lissenden Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 116 So. 2d 632; 6 Fla.Jur., Const.Law, § 52 and eases cited therein. . (1915) 69 Fla. 521, 68 So. 649, An…