J. HAROLD DAVIS AND WALLACE TOWERS
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.
Davis and Towers were convicted of maintaining a gaming table and room for gambling purposes in violation of Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed their convictions, rejecting challenges to the information's sufficiency, the denial of a continuance, and the admissibility of evidence obtained without a search warrant.
The first count of the information was not duplicitous as it properly charged a single offense under the governing statute; the denial of a continuance was not shown to be error; and even if admission of the warrantless search evidence was error, it was harmless because other testimony supported the verdict.
“The first count of the information in effect uses the language of the statute defining the crime and does not charge two distinct or separate crimes in one count. The count is not duplicitous.”
Establishes that the information properly charged a single offense under the statute and was not vulnerable to a duplicity challenge.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn August 20, 1936, in Lee County, Florida, J. Harold Davis and Wallace Towers maintained a gaming table, room, and gambling implements. The state's 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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Search Warrant Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
The information contains the following:
“In the name and by authority of the State of Florida: Roy D. Stubbs, State Attorney of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, prosecuting for the State of Florida, in the County of Lee under oath information makes that J. Harold Davis and Wallace Towles late of the County and State aforesaid, on the 20th day of August in the year of Our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty-Six, in the county and State aforesaid did un*152lawfully keep, exercise and maintain a gaming table and room and. gaming implements and gaming apparatus, and house booth, tent and shelter for the purpose of gaming and gambling.
“And the said State’s Attorney in a Second County, further information makes that the said J. Harold Davis and Wallace Towles, on the 20th day of August, 1936, in the County and State aforesaid, did unlawfully procure, suffer and permit persons to play for money and other valuable things at games of chance, in a place of which they, the said J. Harold Davis and Wallace Towles, did have charge, control and management; * * *
A motion to quash the first count of the information was overruled, and a motion for a continuance was denied. In a trial on a plea of not guilty the following verdict was rendered:
“We the jury find Wallace Towles Guilty in both counts as charged — Harold Davis Guilty in first count only, so say we all.”
Each defendant was adjudged to be guilty and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment in the State Penitentiary. Writ of error was taken by both.
The statute provides that:
“Whoever * * * keeps, exercises or maintains a gaming table or room, or gaming implements or apparatus, or house, booth, tent, shelter or other place for the purpose of gaming or gambling * * * shall be punished by imprisonment in the State prison not exceeding three years, or by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars.” Sec. 7657 (5499) C.-G. L.
In the first count of the information it is alleged that: “J. Harold Davis and Wallace Towles * * * did unlawfully keep, exercise and maintain a gaming table and room and gaming implements and gaming apparatus, and house, *153booth, tent and shelter for the purpose of gaming and gambling.”
The first count of the information in effect uses the language of the statute defining the crime and does not charge two distinct or separate crimes in one count. The count is not duplicitous. The quoted statute defines one offense, though the count would have stated an offense if it had severally alleged the keeping, exercising or maintaining of a gaming table or room or gaming implements or apparatus, or house, booth, tent, shelter or other place for the purpose of gaming or gambling. See Irvin v. State, 52 Fla. 51, 41 So. 785.
There was ample time for preparing a defense between the arraignment and the trial, and the denial of a motion for continuance is not shown to be error. See Moore v. State, 124 Fla. 332, 168 So. 397,
Even if on this record it was error to admit testimony of the officers as to finding gambling paraphernalia in the place indicated by the evidence, when the officers entered without a search warrant, it was immaterial and harmless since there was other testimony adduced to support the verdict and judgment, and no timely effort is shown to have been made to suppress the evidence in regard to the finding of the paraphernalia.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Moss, 206 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…two acts constitutes a crime, a count which charges the commission of both acts is not duplicitous. Miles v. State, 1948, 160 Fla. 523, 524-525, 36 So. 2d 182, 183; Holder v. State, 1939, 136 Fla. 880, 881-882, 187 So. 781-782; Davis v. State, 1939, 137 Fla. 151, 152-153, 187 So. 761-762. Therefore, neither count of the information quashed below is duplicitous. See Williamson v. State, 1945, 155 Fla. 477, 478-479, 20 So. 2d 482, 483. We have seen that both counts charge violation of the same offense arisin…
Authorities Cited
- Irvin v. State, 52 Fla. 51 (Fla. 1906)
- Ward v. State, 124 Fla. 113 (Fla. 1936)
- Lacey Moore v. State, 124 Fla. 332 (Fla. 1936)