JACK T. RAINWATER, CAROLE ALTER, MARY E. EPPEHIMER, MARY J. FELKINS, JOSEPH F. HATCHER, ROSALYN A. NADLER AND DONALD O. PINDER, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1966-04-26
No. 65-638
Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, JJ.
186 So. 2d 278 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1966) Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that evidence obtained by federal officers was admissible in state prosecution and that the trial court did not err in refusing to admit documents regarding the federal government's decision not to prosecute.

Facts & Procedural History

Defendants were convicted for violating the statute prohibiting lotteries. They appealed, raising several contentions regarding the admissibility of e…

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.

Topics
Materiality Of Evidence Constitutional Rights Admissibility Of Evidence

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Materiality Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal by the defendants following conviction for violation of the statute prohibiting a lottery (§ 849.09, Fla.Stat.,. F.S.A.) three points are presented.

First, it is contended that evidence-obtained by federal officers under a search, warrant, on the basis of which prosecution' under federal law was instituted but later abandoned, was inadmissible in the state prosecution and that its use there violated' their constitutional rights. We rejected', that contention, with reference to such evidence, when it was raised in the recent case of Christian v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 561, and on authority thereof we hold the appellants’ first point is not meritorious.

Secondly, it is contended by appellants that the trial court erred in refusing to admit certain documents offered in evi*279■dence to show that the failure of the federal ■government to prosecute was for the announced reason that the evidence was considered insufficient upon which to obtain a ■conviction for violation of federal law. Such evidence was not material in the pros-ecution under state law, and the trial court’s refusal to permit it to be shown was not ■error.

Appellants’ third contention, that the evidence was insufficient, is not borne •out by the record.

No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Williams, 227 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
    …. Municipalities can fine no more than $500 nor imprison more than 6 months. See F.S.1967, Section 165.19, F.S.A. . Reddick v. State, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 413; Christian v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 176 So. 2d 561; Rainwater v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 278.…
  • Rainwater v. State, 208 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
    …PER CURIAM. Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on the 26th day of April, 1966 (186 So. 2d 278) affirming the judgment of the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment by certiorari, the Supreme Court of the United States, by its opinion and judgment filed Ma…
  • Rainwater v. State, 192 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1966)
    …Certiorari denied without opinion. 186 So. 2d 278.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw