Hale v. State, 72--370
| Citation | 273 So.2d 145 |
| Decision Date | 14 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--370,72--370 |
| Parties | Joseph Vincent HALE, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Richard Kanner, Miami, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Sheridan Weinstein, Legal Intern, for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
By an indictment of a grand jury in Dade County the appellant Joseph Vincent Hale, Jr. was charged in each of three counts with violation of § 800.04 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. which is entitled 'Lewd, lascivious or indecent assault or act upon or in presence of child,' a felony in the second degree for which the penalty prescribed (§ 775.082(2)(b) Fla.Stat., F.S.A.) is imprisonment in the state penitentiary for not exceeding 15 years, or a fine not to exceed $10,000 (§ 775.083(1)), or both.
A directed verdict of acquittal was granted on the first two counts, and the defendant was found guilty on the third count. Judgment was entered thereon and the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of ten years. The defendant appealed.
The appellant presents two grounds as basis for reversal. First, he contends the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the state to amend its bill of particulars in a certain respect prior to trial on the date of trial. The original bill of particulars had stated, as to the acts charged in the three counts, that they had taken place in the Dade County Youth Hall. A certain boy (under 14 years of age) was named in each of the three counts. The separate counts had charged the commission of certain acts on or within different dates. On the day preceding the date of trial the state submitted an amended bill of particulars, and moved for leave to so amend. The purpose was to correct a statement of the place of the acts alleged in the third count as having occurred in the defendant's apartment rather than in Youth Hall. The motion was denied. However, on the following day, prior to trial, the motion of the state was renewed and it was granted.
The appellant contends that allowance of the amendment to the bill of particulars constituted reversible error. The state argues the matter was one within the discretion of the court, and that no prejudice was shown to have resulted therefrom. The case of Crowell v. State, Fla.App.1970, 238 So.2d 690, cited and relied upon by the appellant is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoffman v. State
...State; MacCourt v. State, 296 So.2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 307 So.2d 449 (Fla.1974); Howlett v. State. See also Hale v. State, 273 So.2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 277 So.2d 285 (Fla.1973) (particulars amended to show different location); Barber v. State, 243 So.2d 2 (Fla. 2......
-
Maccourt v. State
...Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 2; Fitzgerald v. State, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 45; Hunter v. State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 577; Hale v. State, Fla.App.1973, 273 So.2d 145; cf. Crowell v. State, Fla.App.1970, 238 So.2d Our determination that no reversible error has been shown should not be constru......
-
Hale v. State, 43512
...Vincent HALE, Jr., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. No. 43512. Supreme Court of Florida. April 24, 1973. Certiorari denied. 273 So.2d 145. CARLTON, C.J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., ...