Harris v. State

Decision Date16 December 1969
Docket NumberNo. 69--40,69--40
Citation229 So.2d 670
PartiesStanley Harvey HARRIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Louis Vernell, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C.J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

BARKDULL, Judge.

The appellant was convicted in the criminal court of record, following a jury verdict of the unlawful sale of marijuana. He appeals the conviction, judgment and sentence thereon and urges, as points on appeal: (1) That the trial judge committed error in trying him on a second information, filed after the expiration of the statute of limitations. (2) That the trial judge erred in limiting his cross-examination of State witnesses. (3) That there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. (4) That the trial judge erred in denying his motion for new trial upon the ground that the jury was exposed to highly inflammatory and prejudicial matter not related to the cause in the trial court. We affirm.

As to the first error urged, the acts allegedly constituting a crime occurred on December 30, 1965. A single count information was filed against the appellant on January 11, 1966, under Clerk's File No. 66--214B, charging him with Unlawful possession and sale of marijuana. Thereafter on October 7, 1968, subsequent to the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations, the State filed a motion to amend the information in the same numbered cause pending in the criminal court of record, the amendment being to make the information read in two counts: First, as to Unlawful possession and, second, as to Unlawful sale. The trial judge permitted this amendment and the appellant was tried thereon. The State conceded that, pursuant to the authorities found in Horton v. Mayo, 153 Fla. 611, 15 So.2d 327; Mead v. State, Fla.1958, 101 So.2d 373, unless there is a linkage between the second information filed Without the statutory period, it was error for the trial to proceed thereon. However, the State contends there was sufficient linkage under the authorities (State v. Adjmi, Fla.App.1964, 170 So.2d 340) and that the trial judge was correct in proceeding. We agree with the State's position. The information filed, pursuant to the motion to amend on October 7, 1968, did not change the date, the quantum or the manner of the offenses charged and certainly did not mislead the defendant. Tootle v. State, 100 Fla. 1248, 130 So. 912; Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 811.

As to the second error urged, the limitation of cross-examination, the conduct of a trial proceeding lies within the broad discretion of a trial judge (Hathaway v. State, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 662; Baisden v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 194), and should not be lightly interfered with by an appellate court. Reveals v. State, 64 Fla. 432, 59 So. 951; Matera v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 180. A trial judge is in a much better position to determine the order of proof and the extent of cross-examination and the introduction of evidence than an appellate court reviewing a cold record. Further, even if it had constituted error at the time of the rulings, they would be without merit at this stage of the proceedings because the very answers which the appellant's counsel attempted to elicit from the witnesses were ultimately put into the record. 1

As to the third error urged, the sufficiency of the evidence, it is patently without merit. At the time of the sale of the marijuana in the instant cause, the defendant (after having negotiated the price) directed the purchasers to leave his premises and to conclude the purchase outside with his agent. The agent of the defendant came out with the contraband, received the money, and disappeared back into the premises wherein the purchasers had just left the defendant. We find no merit in the defendant's contention that this did not constitute a violation of § 398.03, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Straub v. United States, 5th Cir.1965, 351 F.2d 304, 305; Dolliver v. United States, 9th Cir.1967, 379 F.2d 307; People v. McNulty, 171 Cal.App.2d 86, 340 P.2d 340; People v. Aldridge, 19 Ill.2d 176, 166 N.E.2d 563; People v. Parson, 27 Ill.2d 263, 189...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • State v. Clifton, 5D03-4110.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 18, 2005
    ...2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), review denied, 509 So.2d 1119 (Fla.1987); State v. Garofalo, 453 So.2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Harris v. State, 229 So.2d 670 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1969), cert. denied, 237 So.2d 752 (Fla.1970); see also Scharfschwerdt v. Kanarek, 553 So.2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), review den......
  • State v. Clifton, 5D03-4110.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 11, 2005
    ...2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), review denied, 509 So.2d 1119 (Fla.1987); State v. Garofalo, 453 So.2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Harris v. State, 229 So.2d 670 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1969), cert. denied, 237 So.2d 752 (Fla.1970); see also Scharfschwerdt v. Kanarek, 553 So.2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), review den......
  • State v. Glover
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • December 28, 1979
    ...information or indictment was timely filed. Patterson v. Municipal Court, 17 Cal.App.3d 84, 94 Cal.Rptr. 449 (1971); Harris v. State, 229 So.2d 670 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1969). None of the cases located, however, involved an attempt to amend an original information that, itself, was filed after ......
  • State v. Eppens
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • August 5, 1981
    ...information was timely filed. See Patterson v. Municipal Court, 17 Cal.App.3d 84, 94 Cal.Rptr. 449, 451 (1971); Harris v. State, 229 So.2d 670 (Fla.D.C.App.1969); State v. Glover, In support of the continuing validity of the amended information, the State relies on the relation back doctrin......
  • 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