J. E. THOMPSON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,V. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 reversed a conviction for maintaining a gambling table, finding that the trial court improperly excluded evidence crucial to the defendant's defense.
Yes, the trial court erred by excluding evidence relevant to the defendant's defense, which deprived him of a material defense.
“The evidence connecting Thompson with the crime charged is not at all conclusive.”
Highlights the weakness of the prosecution's case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ. E. Thompson was convicted of maintaining a gambling table. The evidence showed several individuals playing a game called 'skin' around a table in a…
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 Admissibility Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Terrell, J.
Plaintiff in Error J. E. Thompson was indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced to eighteen months hard labor in the State Prison because he did “unlawfully have,, keep, exercise’and maintain a certain gambling table for the purpose of gaming and gambling.”
There are twenty-six assignments of error, all of which are based on the admission or rejection of testimony. The evidence connecting Thompson with the crime charged is not at all conclusive.
It seems that a number of negroes were apprehended while indulging in a game called “skin” around a tabic in the back room of a restaurant at New Smyrna, Florida. Thompson was not present nor was it shown that the room where the arrest was made had been used for gaming or gambling purposes prior to such arrest.
Most of the assignments of error are grounded on rulings of the trial court, excluding evidence of Thompson or witnesses in his behalf, showing his (Thompson’s) connection with the restaurant and the facts surrounding its establishment and conduct. This evidence should have gone to the jury and its exclusion deprived plaintiff in error of a material defense for which the cause must be reversed. The judgment and sentence of the Court below is therefore reversed and a new trial awarded.’
Whitfield, P. J., and West, J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis and Browne, j. J., concur in the opinion.