EVELIO GRELLO, ET AL.,
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.
Evelio Grello and Celestino Lopez were convicted of lottery-related offenses in Hillsborough County. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed their convictions, finding that Grello's own testimony established he knowingly possessed lottery tickets and disposed of them to prevent police discovery.
The convictions were affirmed. Grello was technically guilty of possessing lottery tickets because his own testimony established he knew what the duplicate tickets were and voluntarily took possession of them with knowledge of their nature, even if he had no criminal interest in conducting the lottery itself.
“while it appears that Grello may have been innocent of any criminal interest insofar as participation in conducting a lottery is concerned, his own testimony as a witness leads to the conclusion that he did know what the "duplicate tickets" were and that so knowing, he voluntarily took them into his manual possession”
Establishes the basis for Grello's conviction—knowledge and voluntary possession of lottery implements, demonstrated by his own testimony
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn April 18, 1939, Grello and Lopez were charged with unlawfully possessing lottery implements (duplicate tickets for a 'New York bond' lottery) and c…
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.
Information in two counts was presented against Evelio Grello and Celestino Lopez. The first count charged: “that Evelio Grello and Celestino Lopez late of the County of Plillsborough aforesaid, in the State aforesaid, on the 18th day of April in the year of Our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and thirty-nine with force and arms at and in the County of Hillsborough aforesaid, did *237unlawfully have in their possession certain implements and devices for conducting a lottery commonly known as New York bond, which lottery was conducted for money, said implements and devices being duplicate tickets in a lottery not yet played and being a part of the paraphernalia for conducting the aforesaid lottery, * * *” and the second count charged: “that Evelio Grello and Celestino Lopez late of the County of Hillsborough aforesaid, in the State aforesaid, on the 18th day of April in the year of Our Lord, one Thousand nine hundred thirty-nine, with force and arms at and in' the County of Hillsborough aforesaid, did unlawfully conduct a lottery for money, and by means of a lottery did dispose of money, and did sell tickets in a certain lottery for money, said lottery being commonly known as New York bond, a further description of which is to the Solicitor unknown.”
Grello was convicted on the first count and general verdict of guilty was returned against Lopez. Accused were adjudged guilty and sued out writ of error.
We have carefully examined the record' and, while it appears that Grello may have been innocent of any criminal interest insofar as participation in conducting a lottery is concerned, his own testimony as a witness leads to the conclusion that he did know what the “duplicate tickets” were and that so knowing, he voluntarily took them into his manual possession and threw them out of the automobile in which he was riding with Lopez to prevent the then pursuing officer from finding them in the Lopez automobile. So the jury was justified in the reasonable conclusion that he was technically guilty. This Court is without power to modify the sentence imposed.
On examination of the entire record, we find no reversible error. So the judgment must be affirmed.
*238So ordered.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Russo v. State, 142 Fla. 596 (Fla. 1940)…On Rehearing Thomas, J. )An opinion was formerly filed April 12, affirming the judgment on the 'authority of Grello v. State, 194 South. Rep. 638. In this affirmance all members of the Court who participated agreed. It was then discovered that through inadvertence the request for oral argument was overlooked and a rehearing was granted, as it should have been in the circumstances, so that at…