STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ESTEBAN RODRIGUEZ, A/K/A STEVE RODRIGUEZ, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida Supreme Court quashed the District Court of Appeal's reversal of a lottery conviction, holding that a trial court need not instruct on a lesser-included offense of possession of lottery paraphernalia when the defendant is charged with aiding or assisting in running a lottery.
A trial court is not required to give a requested instruction on possession of lottery paraphernalia as a lesser-included offense when the defendant is charged with aiding or assisting in the running of a lottery.
[1] A trial court is not required to instruct the jury on a lesser-included offense of possession of lottery paraphernalia when the defendant is charged with aiding or assist…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEsteban Rodriguez was convicted of aiding or assisting in the running of a lottery. At trial, he requested an instruction on the lesser-included offen…
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 Paraphernalia cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition for certiorari, we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District (257 So.2d 81), which allegedly conflicts with prior decisions of this Court and of the District Courts of Appeal of the State on the same point of law. We have examined the decisions involved and determined that there is conflict and that we have jurisdiction pursuant to Fla.Const., art. V, § 3(b)(3), F.S.A.
The District Court of Appeal relied upon its decision in Anderson v. State, 255 So.2d 550 (Fla.App.2d, 1971), to reverse the trial court and order a new trial because Rodriguez, who had been convicted of aiding or assisting in the running of a lottery, had been denied a requested instruction on possession of lottery paraphernalia. The reasoning relied upon by the District Court of Appeal has been specifically rejected by this Court in quashing the decision of the District Court of Appeal in Anderson v. State, supra. See State v. Anderson, 270 So.2d 353 (Fla.1973).
Accordingly, the opinion of the District Court of Appeal is quashed and this cause *6is remanded to the District Court of Appeal for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
McCAIN, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodriguez v. State, 283 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…PER CURIAM. This court’s prior opinion, 1972, 257 So. 2d 81, reversing the judgment against Rodriguez, was quashed by the Supreme Court. State v. Rodriguez, Fla.1973, 276 So. 2d 5. The Supreme Court remanded to us for consideration of other points on appeal not dealt with in our earlier opinion. A second review indicates that such error as there is in the record is harmless. Fla. Stat. § 924.33 (1971), F.S.A. Affirmed. MANN…
Authorities Cited
- Bruno v. State, 270 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1972)
- State v. Anderson, 270 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1972)
- Anderson v. State, 255 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Rodriguez v. State, 257 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)