State v. Kessler
This text of 626 So. 2d 251 (State v. Kessler) 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.
Opinion
STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Max KESSLER, Arnold Hecht, and Bardo, Inc., Appellees.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
J. Scott Raft, Asst. State Atty., and James P. McLane, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
James S. Benjamin and Daniel R. Aaronson, Benjamin & Aaronson, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.
Thomas F. Luken, Fort Lauderdale, for amicus curiae Fashion Cinema, Inc., and Isabelle and Samuel Munz, and Grafton N. Carlson, Fort Lauderdale, for amicus curiae Margaret Gentile.
Rehearing or Certification and Rehearing En Banc Denied November 24, 1993.
*252 PER CURIAM.
The trial court's order being appealed dismissed Counts I and II of the information against appellees, and rejected appellant's contention that lewdness and assignation under section 796.07, Florida Statutes (1989), were predicates to support a RICO prosecution pursuant to chapter 895, Florida Statutes. The trial court did not accept appellant's position that the phrase "relating to prostitution" in section 895.02(1)(a)(16), Florida Statutes (1989), included lewdness and assignation. We agree and affirm.
GLICKSTEIN, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
626 So. 2d 251, 1993 WL 369361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kessler-fladistctapp-1993.