CLYDE F. LEE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
By this appeal from a judgment of conviction for the offenses of aiding and assisting in the conducting of a lottery, possession of lottery tickets, and possession of lottery devices, appellant contends primarily that there is an absence of sufficient proof as to venue. Appellee, State, contends that appellant failed to preserve the foregoing point on appeal by not timely filing a motion for new trial. The record reflects that appellant preserved the foregoing point on appeal by timely filing a motion for judgment of acquittal. It is our conclusion, after considering the cause upon the merits, that the judgment appealed should be and is hereby affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K„ Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Hoffman v. State, 397 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 1981)…one day’s date on a pleading, to wait in ambush for the state until the jury is sworn then spring his trap is tantamount to asking the court to referee a game of hide and seek. 372 So. 2d at 534. Following the principle set out in Howlett v. State, 260 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), the district court affirmed both Hoffman’s conviction and sentence. Hoffman now contends that the district court decision conflicts with the following statement made by this Court: When there is a bill of particulars, and when…
-
Gaines v. State, 406 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…onable doubt that the offense was committed on a date reasonably near the date alleged.” See Fla.Std.Jury Instr. (Crim.) 2.09 (1976). . This court’s holdings to the same effect in Dent v. State, 391 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Howlett v. State, 260 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); and Perlman v. State, 269 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), were implicitly affirmed by the Supreme Court’s holding in Hoffman v. State, supra. Hoffman qualified the Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Beamon, 298 So. 2d 376 (Fla.…
-
Hoffman v. State, 372 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…the contrary we abide by the principle that no trial, especially one where a person is accused by the state of a crime, should be by surprise attack. That did not occur in this case and we follow the general principle we set out in Howlett v. State, 260 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) that a defect as to date of the offense may not be a fatal defect. This principle was also recognized in Lackos v. State, 339 So. 2d 217 (Fla.1976) where our supreme court held that a showing of prejudice must precede the “kind o…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence