Rainwater v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rainwater v. State

186 So. 2d 278, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5351

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 26, 1966

DocketNo. 65-638

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 186 So. 2d 278 (Rainwater v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rainwater v. State, 186 So. 2d 278, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5351 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal by the defendants following conviction for violation of the statute prohibiting a lottery (§ 849.09, Fla.Stat.,. F.S.A.) three points are presented.

First, it is contended that evidence-obtained by federal officers under a search, warrant, on the basis of which prosecution' under federal law was instituted but later abandoned, was inadmissible in the state prosecution and that its use there violated' their constitutional rights. We rejected', that contention, with reference to such evidence, when it was raised in the recent case of Christian v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 561, and on authority thereof we hold the appellants’ first point is not meritorious.

Secondly, it is contended by appellants that the trial court erred in refusing to admit certain documents offered in evi[279]*279■dence to show that the failure of the federal ■government to prosecute was for the announced reason that the evidence was considered insufficient upon which to obtain a ■conviction for violation of federal law. Such evidence was not material in the pros-ecution under state law, and the trial court’s refusal to permit it to be shown was not ■error.

Appellants’ third contention, that the evidence was insufficient, is not borne •out by the record.

No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal by the defendants following conviction for violation of the statute prohibiting a lottery (§ 849.09, Fla.Stat.,. F.S.A.) three points are presented.

First, it is contended that evidence-obtained by federal officers under a search, warrant, on the basis of which prosecution' under federal law was instituted but later abandoned, was inadmissible in the state prosecution and that its use there violated' their constitutional rights. We rejected', that contention, with reference to such evidence, when it was raised in the recent case of Christian v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 561, and on authority thereof we hold the appellants’ first point is not meritorious.

Secondly, it is contended by appellants that the trial court erred in refusing to admit certain documents offered in evi[279]*279■dence to show that the failure of the federal ■government to prosecute was for the announced reason that the evidence was considered insufficient upon which to obtain a ■conviction for violation of federal law. Such evidence was not material in the pros-ecution under state law, and the trial court’s refusal to permit it to be shown was not ■error.

Appellants’ third contention, that the evidence was insufficient, is not borne •out by the record.

No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 So. 2d 278, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rainwater-v-state-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack