Hartley v. State, K--209
| Decision Date | 03 October 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. K--209,K--209 |
| Citation | 214 So.2d 489 |
| Parties | James HARTLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
R. A. Green, Jr., Public Defender, and James R. Pierce, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and James McGuirk, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted on a charge of robbery and has appealed from his judgment and sentence thereon.
The questions presented to us on appeal are 1) whether the trial judge improperly admitted a photograph in evidence and 2) whether the trial judge erred in refusing to grant a mistrial after it was learned that one of the jurors was related to a witness for the prosecution.
As to the admission of the photograph we find no reversible error. The photograph purported to depict a police line-up in which the appellant appeared and was identified by the victim of the robbery as the person who committed the robbery. At the trial it was brought out that the victim of the robbery viewed the line-up through a two way mirror whereas the photograph was not taken through a two way mirror. During his testimony at the trial the victim of the robbery positively identified the appellant as the one who robbed him. A police officer testified that the victim identified the appellant in the police line-up as the robber. The photograph was then sought to be introduced in evidence and was so admitted over the objection of defense counsel. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in allowing said photograph in evidence as same was merely cumulative evidence that a police line-up was held, that appellant appeared in the line-up and was identified by the victim at the lineup.
The next point appellant raises is the failure of the trial court to grant his motion for mistrial after a juror discovered. during the course of the trial that he was related to a witness for the State. During the recess following the testimony of Officer M. L. Jones the juror made known to the trial judge and counsel for the parties that when Officer Jones took the stand he realized that they were first cousins. He explained that on voir dire that he did not recognize that the name read off as 'M. L. Jones' was his cousin. Further, he explained that he and his cousin were not close and in fact had not seen each other in four years. The juror stated that the fact of the relationship would not have any bearing on his ability to fairly and impartially weigh the evidence and reach a verdict without regard to his kinship to Jones.
We do not have in the record on appeal a copy of the questions asked the juror on voir dire. However, from the testimony of this juror it seems apparent that the prospective jurors were asked if they were related to someone identified only as M. L. Jones. The name Jones being a very common one and only the initials M. L. given to the jurors, it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Skiles v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc.
...Fla., 92 So.2d 169; Wright v. Bernstein, 23 N.J. 284, 129 A.2d 19; Photostat Corporation v. Ball, 10 Cir., 338 F.2d 783; Hartley v. State, Fla.App., 214 So.2d 489. We affirm the order of the trial court granting a new LILES, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur. ...
-
Jones v. State, 56199
...the two persons, having been determined to be distant and superficial, require that a mistrial be declared. See Hartley v. State, 214 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968). We find no abuse of Appellant contends that the trial judge erred in refusing to disqualify himself from participation in the ......