Abram v. State, N--11
Decision Date | 10 December 1970 |
Docket Number | No. N--11,N--11 |
Citation | 242 So.2d 215 |
Parties | Willie ABRAM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Dawson, Galant, Maddox, Boyer, Sulik & Nichols, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and J. Christian Meffert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant was tried for and convicted of murder in the first degree by the Circuit Court for Duval County and has appealed from his judgment of conviction, based upon a jury verdict, and sentence to life imprisonment.
The most serious contention made by the appellant in this appeal is that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the testimony of one Arthur Bargeron that the deceased victim, James Everett Bargeron, was his brother.
In making this contention the appellant relies primarily upon the decisions of this court in Ashmore v. State, 214 So.2d 67 (Fla.App.1968) and Gibson v. State, 191 So.2d 58 (Fla.App.1966).
In the Ashmore case, supra, after citing Melbourne v. State, 51 Fla. 69, 40 So. 189 (1906), Rowe v. State, 120 Fla. 649, 163 So. 22 (1935), and Hathaway v. State, 100 So.2d 662 (Fla.App.1958), we held:
* * *'
In the earlier case of Gibson, supra, we recognized the same rule as we did in Ashmore, and said:
We fully recognize the rules announced in the Ashmore and Gibson cases, supra, but we do not think that those rules require a reversal in the present appeal because of the following facts: the evidence of the appellant's guilt of the crime charged is so clear and convincing that the testimony in question could not have harmed him; there is no showing in the record that the said testimony had any prejudicial effect; and there is no showing in the record that other witnesses were available to the prosecution to identify the victim's body.
In the case at bar the appellant contends in his brief that his attorney had placed both the prosecution and the trial court on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burch v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
...and that the photograph accurately depicted the way the victim appeared at or near the time of his death. See Abram v. State, 242 So. 2d 215, 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970) (finding that the rule announced in Ashmore did not require reversal, in part because "there [was] no showing in the record t......
-
Barrett v. State, 71--830
...100 So.2d 662; Gibson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 58; Ashmore v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 67, and Abram v. State, Fla.App.1970, 242 So.2d 215. Since the only other evidence of positive identification of the deceased victim was by means of opinion evidence based upon dental chart......
-
Abram v. State
...Willie ABRAM, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent. No. 40724. Supreme Court of Florida. March 22, 1971. Certiorari denied. 242 So.2d 215. ROBERTS, C.J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., ...