Comer v. State, 74--1660
| Decision Date | 29 July 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--1660,74--1660 |
| Citation | 318 So.2d 419 |
| Parties | James COMER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Maynard A. Gross, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.
Defendant-appellant appeals a conviction for robbery and sentence to 8 years in the state penitentiary following a jury trial.
Defendant first claims error on the part of the trial court in the entry of its order denying defense counsel's pretrial motion for discovery seeking the criminal records of the victim.
The requirement that a prosecuting attorney must disclose to defense counsel any record or prior criminal convictions of the persons whom the prosecuting attorney intends to call as witnesses at the trial arises only if such material and information is within his possession and Only upon a showing that defense counsel first has exerted his own efforts and resources and has pursued and exhausted other accessible means and remedies available to him to obtain such information. State v. Coney, Fla.1973, 294 So.2d 82, 87.
The record presented to this court merely consists of the written motion and the subseqnent oral denial thereof. The record being totally devoid of the testimony upon which the subject motion was based, defendant-appellant is precluded from presenting the alleged error for our consideration in that the omitted matter affects the determination of this court. See Costantino v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 341; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 428; Farrington v. State, Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 513.
In addition, immediately preceding the trial, the judge questioned two police officers as to their knowledge of the victim having a criminal record. Both responded in the negative. During the trial the victim testified on cross-examination that he had two traffic convictions and that he was placed on probation for a felony, but adjudication of guilt was withheld. No prejudice having resulted to the defendant, the appellant's argument hereunder must fail. See Buttler v. State, Fla.App.1970, 238 So.2d 313.
Appellant secondly urges that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for mistrial predicated upon the alleged improper and prejudicial cross-examination of the defendant.
The record reflects that with respect to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Finney v. State, s. 84-2529
...(Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Thomas v. State, 374 So.2d 508 (Fla.1979); Clements v. State, 340 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Comer v. State, 318 So.2d 419 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Pons v. State, 278 So.2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); State v. Gillespie, 227 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). Therefore we find ......
-
Smith v. State, 76491.
...of any witness the prosecution intends to call at trial. Yanetta v. State, 320 So.2d 23, 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Comer v. State, 318 So.2d 419, 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The State has no duty, however, "to actively assist the defense in investigating the case." Hansbrough v. State, 509 So.2d 1......
-
Marshall v. State
...3d DCA 1989); Pericola v. State, 499 So.2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Austin v. State, 500 So.2d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Comer v. State, 318 So.2d 419 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 As to the enhanced sentences, we find error and rev......
-
Marquez v. State, 94-1026
...3d DCA 1994); L.J. v. State, 578 So.2d 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Wiggins v. State, 460 So.2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Comer v. State, 318 So.2d 419 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). ...