Holmes v. State

Decision Date14 December 1965
Docket NumberNo. 65-148,65-148
Citation181 So.2d 586
PartiesMilton HOLMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Eli Breger, Miami, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and James T. Carlisle and Arden M. Siegendorf, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Before TILLMAN PEARSON, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal, the defendant seeks review of a jury verdict and judgment thereon finding him guilty of leaving the scene of an accident which resulted in the death of a small child. Upon appeal, the appellant urges error in the introduction of certain photographs of his automobile, contending that same were introduced solely for the purpose of prejudicing or inflaming the minds of the jurors; and, secondly, that the court erred in not instructing the jury as to the penalty for the crime informed against, citing § 918.10(1), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. We find no error and affrim.

The photographs were properly identified. The reasonable inference from the evidence was that they were of the defendant's automobile, and the appellant has cited us no authority that their introduction constituted error. The Supreme Court of Florida has specifically held that notwithstanding the language of § 918.10(1), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., it is not mandatory on the trial court to give instructions as to the penalty. See: Cason v. State, 159 Fla. 294, 31 So.2d 274; Simmons v. State, 160 Fla. 626, 36 So.2d 207. Particularly is this so when no such instruction was requested by the defendant. See: White v. State, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 340; Peel v. State, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 910.

Therefore, the conviction, judgment and sentence here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Tascano v. State, KK-22
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 18, 1978
    ...1 See also, § 918.10(1), Fla.Stat. (1977).2 See also, McBride v. State, 197 So.2d 850 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1967) and Holmes v. State, 181 So.2d 586 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1965).3 See Johnson v. State, 308 So.2d 38 (Fla.1975). Accord, State v. Terry, 336 So.2d 65 (Fla.1976); Huckeba v. State, 322 So.2d......
  • State v. Muentner
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • June 2, 1987
    ...penalties (see, e.g., Conner v. State, 253 So.2d 160 (Fla.App.1961); McBride v. State, 197 So.2d 850 (Fla.App.1967); Holmes v. State, 181 So.2d 586 (Fla.App.1965)), the presence of this direction to trial courts to apprise the juries of penalties for the offenses charged reveals that Florid......
  • Williams v. State, 79-558
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 16, 1980
    ...or interpreting the meaning of the court's rule. Simmons, like McBride v. State, 197 So.2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967) and Holmes v. State, 181 So.2d 586 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1965) are interpretations of statutory wording and these cases are based on the reasoning that the legislature may attempt to d......
  • Conner v. State, 71-35
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 8, 1971
    ...inclusion in the charge of the penalty for the offense for which the defendant was on trial.' The 3rd District Court, in Holmes v. State, Fla.App.1965, 181 So.2d 586 and McClure v. State, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 601, following Simmons, held to the same effect. We follow their As to the refe......
  • 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