Bullard v. State, D-449
| Decision Date | 19 March 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. D-449,D-449 |
| Citation | 151 So.2d 343 |
| Parties | Felix O. BULLARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
W. Dexter Donglass, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and James G. Mahorner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant was convicted under all nine counts of an indictment charging him, as an agent of the state beverage department, with accepting bribes, conspiring to accept bribes, and conspiring for others to give bribes.
The appellant contends that the state, in presenting its case in chief against him, did not present evidence sufficient positively to identify him. There may be some merit to that contention with respect to some of the counts of the indictment, but it is not necessary to reach a definite conclusion on the point, for the appellant no longer has a posture from which he may so contend successfully, if he ever had. At the conclusion of the state's case he moved for a directed verdict 'on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to warrant a conviction as to each count.' After denial of that motion, evidence was presented that did identify the appellant sufficiently to justify the jury in finding him guilty.
The appellant contends that the evidence presented after denial of his motion for directed verdict cannot be considered on this appeal. This court did not so hold in Wiggins v. State; 1 this court there held merely that failure of a defendant to renew a motion for directed verdict at the conclusion of all the evidence does not preclude the defendant from assigning on appeal a claim of error addressed to the denial of the motion made at the conclusion of the state's case. That did not constitute a holding that evidence thereafter introduced may not be considered; that such later evidence may be considered has been held with respect to proof of venue, 2 and no reason is perceived why proof of identity should differ in that respect from proof of venue.
Under the whole evidence in this case the identify of the appellant was sufficiently established, if it was not sufficiently established with respect to some counts by the state's case alone. Consequently, if any error was committed in denying the appellant's 'shotgun' motion for directed verdict at the close of the state's case, with respect to some counts, it was 'harmless error that did not injuriously affect the substantial rights of the appellant.'
The appellant also complains that he was found guilty under separate counts of the indictment that charged him with engaging in the same conspiracy. Counts II and III of the indictment charged the appellant with engaging in essentially the same conspiracy; counts V and VI charged him with engaging in another conspiracy, that was essentially the same conspiracy in each of those two counts; and counts VIII and IX charged him with engaging in still another conspiracy, that was essentially the same conspiracy in each of those two counts.
The jury found the appellant guilty upon every count of the indictment, 'thereby determining that defendant committed the offense in every manner charged,' and the court did not err in entering judgment of guilt accordingly. 3
Because no appeal was taken from the sentence, it is perhaps not necessary to mention the point, out in the interest of preserving intact an important principle we note that the trial court sentenced the appellant to
That sentence was erroneous, insofar as punishment was imposed with respect to each count of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edmond v. State
...1971, 250 So.2d 294; Wyche v. State, Fla.App.2d 1965, 178 So.2d 875; Sharon v. State, Fla.App.3d 1963, 156 So.2d 677; Bullard v. State, Fla.App.1st 1963, 151 So.2d 343; State v. Schaag, Fla.App.1st 1959, 115 So.2d 783; Tribue v. State, Fla.App.2d 1958, 106 So.2d 630; Simmons v. State, 1942,......
-
State v. Pennington
...element. Roberts v. State, 154 Fla. 36, 16 So.2d 435 (1944); Kozakoff v. State, 104 So.2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958); Bullard v. State, 151 So.2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). In the Bullard case, the court specifically rejected the contention that evidence presented after denial of a motion for dire......
-
Pennington v. State
...element. Roberts v. State, 154 Fla. 36, 16 So.2d 435 (1944); Kozakoff v. State, 104 So.2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958); Bullard v. State, 151 So.2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). In the Bullard case, the court specifically rejected the contention that evidence presented after denial of a motion for dire......
-
Footman v. State, 67--187
...Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 875; Wells v. State, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 787; Sharon v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 677; Bullard v. State, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 343; State v. Schagg, Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 783; and Norwood v. State, Fla.1956, 86 So.2d 427. We would not quarrel with the ab......