Edwards v. State, OO-275

Decision Date11 December 1980
Docket NumberNo. OO-275,OO-275
Citation390 So.2d 1239
PartiesCalvin Vincent EDWARDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and David J. Busch, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raises three points in his appeal from a judgment of conviction of one count of robbery with a firearm, one count of burglary of a dwelling, and two counts of sexual battery. We affirm.

Appellant first argues that the trial court erred in reserving ruling on his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's presentation of evidence. We find no error as to this point. Marshall v. State, 321 So.2d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). By proceeding with his case without requiring the court to rule on his motion of acquittal, appellant treated the motion as denied.

As to Point 2, appellant relies on McArthur v. Nourse, 369 So.2d 578 (Fla.1979), in arguing that it was error for the trial court to deny his motion for judgment of acquittal because the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. The evidence at trial revealed that the assailants were black and used a two-cell flashlight. One of the men wore red plaid cutoffs, and another wore rubber gloves. The officers investigating the crime testified that they visually followed two sets of footprints, one barefooted and the other with a specific shoe design, from a point outside a rear window of the house to an intersection across the street from the house. Approximately two hours after the crime occurred, a bloodhound named Wrinkles was put down at the barefoot track at the intersection. Wrinkles followed the trail which led to a parked vehicle in which appellant was sleeping. Appellant was black, barefooted, wearing red plaid cutoffs, and had a two-cell flashlight and a pair of rubber gloves in his possession.

Appellant argued that the evidence concerning the trailing of Wrinkles should not have been introduced because of Wrinkles' young age. We disagree. At trial a proper predicate was laid for the admissibility of this evidence. Wrinkles' former owner, as well as his present trainer, testified to the training methods used with Wrinkles and his prior record of tracking humans. Previously he had been used successfully on four or five different occasions to track escapees from jail. Wrinkles was a purebred registered bloodhound and he was put down on a trail which the officers had visually followed from the house to the point where he started. There was no hesitation on Wrinkles' part in following the trail to appellant's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Jones v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 26, 1985
    ...was placed on a certain jalousie slat; delinquency adjudication based on burglary and theft findings upheld); Edwards v. State, 390 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (state's evidence, including bloodhound tracking, deemed sufficient to link defendant to a burglary, robbery, sexual battery; co......
  • Ramos v. State, 63,444
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • August 28, 1986
    ...v. Bankston, 435 So.2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1022, 104 S.Ct. 1273, 79 L.Ed.2d 698 (1984); Edwards v. State, 390 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). In Tomlinson we approved the admissibility of dog-tracking evidence upon a finding that "[t]he character and dependability......
  • McCray v. State, 3D04-2854.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • November 30, 2005
    ...evidence. See Toler v. State, 457 So.2d 1115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), review dismissed, 461 So.2d 116 (Fla.1984); Edwards v. State, 390 So.2d 1239, 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)(evidence that the tracking dog was a "purebred registered bloodhound" along with evidence regarding his training and that ......
  • Toler v. State, AW-469
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 12, 1984
    ...an accused is admissible provided a proper foundation is laid. Tomlinson v. State, 129 Fla. 658, 176 So. 543, (1937); Edwards v. State, 390 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Florida courts have never held that a proper foundation necessarily requires evidence that the dog is purebred, althoug......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT