Cumbie v. State, X--315
| Decision Date | 10 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. X--315,X--315 |
| Citation | 327 So.2d 67 |
| Parties | Marvin Leroy CUMBIE, Appellant (Defendant), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee (State). |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Donald G. Nichols, Dawson, Galant, Maddox, Sulik & Nichols, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
A Jury found the defendant guilty of the crimes of assault with the intent to commit first degree murder and assault with the intent to commit rape. The defendant appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentence to concurrent fifteen year terms. The issues raised are whether the trial court erred (1) in failing to admit the results of a lie detector test into evidence, (2) in failing to require the state to elect one of the two crimes charged to present to the jury, (3) in sentencing the defendant on each crime, and (4) in permitting two witnesses for the state to testify to statements made to them by the defendant where the state, in response to demand for discovery, stated that the defendant made no statement.
In the absence of a stipulation and upon objection, the results of a lie detector test are inadmissible. Codie v. State, 313 So.2d 754 (Fla.1975). In the case before us, there was no stipulation and the state objected.
Unless the counts of an information are inconsistent and repugnant to each other, and unless the defendant cannot be convicted under both counts, the state is not required to make an election, but may prosecute each of the counts. Tidwell v. State, 143 Fla. 397, 196 So. 837 (1970). The defendant was charged with two separate crimes which were neither inconsistent nor repugnant to each other, and the defendant could have been and was convicted under both counts.
In the case before us, assault with the intent to commit first degree murder and assault with the intent to commit rape are not facets of the same criminal transaction, but are separate and distinct acts, therefore, are punishable separately. See Amerson v. State, 303 So.2d 377 (Fla.App.1st, 1974). The victim was forcibly required to undress and to submit to defendant's efforts to have intercourse with her. When unsuccessful in consummating the act, defendant made the victim dress, and after walking some distance from the scene of the first act, suddenly stabbed her in the left side and neck with a knife.
Violation of a criminal rule of procedure does not require the reversal of a conviction unless the record discloses that noncompliance with the rule resulted in prejudice or harm to the defendant. Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971). In response to defendant's Rule 3.220(a)(1)(iii) demand that it furnish him with the substance of any oral statements made by him,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lhost v. State
...111 Ariz. 423, 531 P.2d 1130, 1132 (1975); People v. Reeder, 65 Cal.App.3d 235, 135 Cal.Rptr. 421, 422-423 (1976); Cumbie v. State, 327 So.2d 67, 68 (Fla.App.1976); People v. Oswalt, 26 Ill.App.3d 224, 324 N.E.2d 666, 667 (1975); Banks v. State, 351 N.E.2d 4, 10 (Ind.1976); State v. Conner,......
-
Suarez v. Aguiar, s. 76-1746 and 76-1747
...testified that he read and understood). The Court finds that the required offer of coverage was made (distinguished Cumbie vs. State, (Fla.App.,) 327 So.2d 67, where the Court found that the insured did not have knowledge nor was offered UMI coverage)."7. The telephone application was then ......
-
Brown v. State, AU-207
...test results and testimony concerning those results are inadmissible. Codie v. State, 313 So.2d 754 (Fla.1975); Cumbie v. State, 327 So.2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), reversed on other grounds, 345 So.2d 1061 (Fla.1977). In the case before us, there was a stipulation, but it was not a stipulati......
-
Cumbie v. State
...BY THE COURT: We have before us for review upon a writ of certiorari a decision of the First District Court of Appeal reported at 327 So.2d 67 which on its face directly conflicts with this Court's decision in Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971). We have jurisdiction under Article......