STATE
v.
SLATON; STATE V. ALRED
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the quashing of informations charging Slaton and Alred with unlawfully transmitting horse racing information in violation of F.S.A. § 550.35(1). The Court held that the informations were insufficient because they failed to identify the specific race in which the violation occurred, a material element of the offense.
The informations were insufficient because they failed to state the specific race in which the violation was committed. The Court held that the time of the offense must be stated with sufficient definiteness to describe it when it becomes a material element, and since multiple races occurred each day, the particular race must be identified.
“The time of the offense must be stated with such definiteness as to describe it, when as here, it becomes a material element. Since it was the practice to run a series of races each day, the race in which the violation was committed should be stated.”
Establishes the core holding that the specific race must be identified in the information when multiple races occur daily.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Slaton and Alred were charged under F.S.A. § 550.35(1) with transmitting results of horse races from Gulfstream Park within thirty minutes …
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.
TERRELL, Justice.
Appellants were informed against for violating paragraph one, Section 550.35, Florida Statutes F.S.A., relating to the transmission of racing information for gambling purposes as follows:
“It shall be unlawful for any person to transmit or communicate to another by any means whatsoever the results, changing odds, track conditions, jockey changes, or any other information relating to any horse race from .any race track in this state, between the period of time beginning one hour prior to the first race of any day and ending thirty minutes after the posting of the official results of each race as to that particular race, excepting that this time may be reduced to permit the transmitting of the results of the last race each day not sooner than fifteen minutes after the official post ing of such results. Provided, however, that the state racing commission may, by rule, permit the immediate transmission 'by ; radio, television, or press wire of any pertinent information concerning • not more than two feature races each week.”
The information' in both cases was quashed and the state has appealed. The only question presented goes to the sufficiency of the information to. state a cause of action. The state contends that this question should have been answered in the affirmative and relies on State v. Ucciferri, Fla., 61 So. 2d 374 and State v. Pound, Fla., 49 So. 2d 521, to support its contention.
The information in the Ucciferri case was very similar to the information in the present case hut the charge in the two cases was entirely different. In the .Uc-ciferri case the question was whether or not the statute, Section 550.35(1), violated the free speech provision of the Federal Constitution. We answered in the negative. The information in’ the Ucciferri case named the race in which the statute was violated and detailed such other facts as wer.e essential for the defendant to prepare his defense.
The-information in this case was as follows :
“That H. S. Slaton, of the County of Dade -and State of Florida, on the 20th day of March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand and nine hundred and fifty two, in the County and State aforesaid, did unlawfully transmit or communicate to person or persons unknown, the result of a horse race, from a track operating in the State of Florida, to-wit: Gulf stream Park, within thirty minutes after the posting of the official result of the said race, * * *»
II is not necessary to prove knowledge or intent on the part of defendant to violate the statute. (It must be shown that the prohibited information was knowingly used or that it was intended to be used in violation of the statute.) The time of the offense must be stated 'with such definiteness as to describe it, when as here, it becomes , a material element. Since it was the practice to run a series of races each day,, the race in which the violation was 'committed should be stated.,
For these and other reasons the information was insufficient so the judgment appealed from is'affirmed.
Affirmed.
ROBRRTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., -concur..
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sol I. Cohen v. State, 125 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1960)…and should be construed as not eliminating but rather as requiring proof of scienter and, as thus construed, can be upheld. The State calls our attention to the fact that this Court has so construed at least two statutes. State v. Slaton, Fla.1953, 68 So. 2d 894 (statute prohibited illegal transmission of racing information) and Brent v. State, 1937, 127 Fla. 626, 173 So. 675 (larceny statute then in force). Also see State v. Diez, Fla.1957, 97 So. 2d 105, in which this Court held a statute requiring a non-…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Thomas J. Kelly v. Whisnant, 80 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1955)…it was wholly void. This court is committed to that doctrine. State ex rel. Williams v. Coleman, 131 Fla. 892, 180 So. 357; Croft v. State, 105 Fla. 519, 143 So. 599; State ex rel. Tatham v. Coleman, 122 Fla. 819, 166 So. 221; State v. Alred, Fla., 68 So. 2d 894; Section 11, Declaration of Rights, F.S.A. Constitution of Florida, and Amendment VI, Federal Constitution. Appellant recognizes the rule enunciated in the last cited cases but says that if it is not mere dicta it is not supported by the weight of…
-
State v. Smith, 151 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)…People of the State of California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1958). See Smith v. People of the State of California, 361 U.S. 147, 80 S.Ct. 215, 4 L.Ed.2d 205 (1960). . Cohen v. State, 125 So. 2d 560 (Fla.1961). . State v. Slaton, 68 So. 2d 894 (Fla.1953) involved a statute prohibiting illegal transmission of racing information. Brent v. State, 127 Fla. 626, 173 So. 675 (1937) involved a larceny statute then in force. State v. Diez, 97 So. 2d 105 (Fla.1957) involved the noncommunist oath f…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Ucciferri, 61 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 1952)