Gray v. State, 74-832
| Decision Date | 01 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-832,74-832 |
| Parties | Daniel Eugene GRAY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Kurt Marmar, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Lance R. Stelzer, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
The appellant has presented two points on appeal from his conviction for murder in the first degree. The first point does not present error because it is our view that the curative instruction given after the prosecutor's comment substantially eradicated any possible prejudice. See Hanson v. State, Fla.1952, 56 So.2d 129.
Appellant's second point urges that he should have been given a psychological examination pursuant to CrPR 3.740 prior to sentencing. The rule clearly places the matter within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge who has heard the evidence. In this case, no evidence was offered to the trial judge to suggest that the appellant was insane at the time he came in for sentencing. We think that the clear intent of the rule is that in the absence of evidence indicating insanity at the time of the sentencing, the trial judge need not order such an examination. See Grissom v. Wainwright, 494 F.2d 30 (5th Cir. 1974).
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Courtney v. State
...3d DCA 1977); Abbott v. State, 334 So.2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Bullard v. State, 324 So.2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Gray v. State, 310 So.2d 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); and Wilcox v. State, 299 So.2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Accordingly, appellant's first point on appeal is without Appellant, i......
-
Cabe v. State
...such an evaluation was not error because no evidence was offered to suggest insanity at the time of sentencing. See Gray v. State, 310 So.2d 320, 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Appellant's final point requires reversal of the conviction and a remand of the case for new trial. He asserts that it wa......
- Valley Car Wash, Inc. v. 163rd Street Shopping Center, 74-452