CLARENCE WILLIAMS
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.
Clarence Williams was convicted of possessing lottery tickets in violation of Florida law and sentenced to 18 months hard labor. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting his arguments regarding the sufficiency of evidence and the admission of a prior guilty plea.
The evidence was sufficient because it established that the defendant possessed lottery tickets representing an interest in a lottery yet to be played that night, meeting the statutory requirements. The admission of the prior guilty plea was not error, and the defendant failed to demonstrate any error occurred during the trial.
“a lottery ticket within the meaning of the statute, supra, should "represent an interest in a lottery yet to be played."”
Establishes the legal standard for what constitutes a lottery ticket under the statute, applied from D'Alessandro v. State.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn October 19, 1937, Williams was charged with possessing lottery tickets contrary to Section 7667 C.G.L. A witness named Fred Williams testified that…
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 Possession Of Lottery Tickets cases and more on FLexlaw
On October 19, 1937, Clarence Williams, plaintiff in error, was informed against in the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County, Florida, for having in his possession lottery tickets contrary to Section 7667 C. G. L. He was arraigned, placed upon trial, was by a jury convicted and by the trial court sentenced to the State Pententiary at hard labor for a period of eighteen months, and upon a writ of error seeks a reversal thereof in this Court. The sole assignment relied upon is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment, which was properly raised or presented in the trial court on motion for a new trial, which was denied. The State produced a witness by the name of Fred Williams, who testified he got the tickets from the defendant in the City of Jacksonville where he *590was then working. The defendant stated that the “throwing” would be tonight, meaning the night of the day when delivered by the defendant to the witness, Williams. The record is silent as to the amount paid therefor, but this point is not material to the issues here involved as the possession thereof is made a crime under Section 7667 C. G. L. In the case of D’Alessandro v. State, 114 Fla. 70, 153 So. 95, it was held that a lottery ticket within the meaning of the statute, supra, should “represent an interest in a lottery yet to be played.” The time of the playing, as shown by the record according to the statement of the defendant was “to be tonight.” We think the evidence on this point meets the requirements of the statute.
It is next contended that the lower court erred in admitting into evidence over the objection of the defendant a plea of guilty made and entered by the defendant upon arraignment on the same charge in a Justice of the Peace District in Duval County. The case of Daniels v. State, 57 Fla. 1, 48 So. 747, is cited by counsel to sustain their contention. We have examined the case and hold that it fails to sustain their conclusion. The responsibility rests' upon plaintiff in error to show that error occurred during the progress of the trial. We have carefully examined the entire record, briefs of counsel and have heard argument at this bar and find that no error has been made to appear, so, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J., concur.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Bufórd, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mose Daniels v. State, 57 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1909)
- D'Alessandro v. State, 114 Fla. 70 (Fla. 1934)