Johnson v. State, 82-175
| Decision Date | 26 November 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-175,82-175 |
| Citation | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2618,478 So.2d 885 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2618 Charles JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HUBBART and BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.
This is an appeal from judgments of conviction for (1) sexual battery of a child under the age of eleven years, and (2) attempted first degree murder, plus a seventy-five year sentence imposed solely on the sexual battery conviction. Two points are raised by the defendant on appeal; a third point raised in defendant's brief was abandoned at the time of oral argument.
First, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal as to the sexual battery count on the ground that the state failed to establish that the victim was eleven years of age or younger as required by Section 794.011(2), Florida Statutes (1983). Specifically, it is urged that no witness testified below and no documentary proof was adduced as to the age of the victim, which proof is an essential element of the crime. We conclude that the point has not been properly preserved for appellate review. Although the defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal at trial, he did not do so based upon the ground now urged on appeal. Instead, he employed a general "boilerplate" motion in which he asserted, without explanation or argument, that the state had failed to prove a "prima facie case" of the crime charged in the indictment, which counsel then tracked as to each element, including age. In so doing, counsel failed to comply with Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.380(b) which requires that the motion for judgment of acquittal "must fully set forth the grounds upon which it is based." (e.s.) Had counsel complied with the rule and specifically brought the ground now urged to the trial court's attention, the error, if any, might have been cured by allowing the state to re-open its case and supply the missing, technical element of age. Under these circumstances, then, the defendant may not now raise the point urged herein for the first time on appeal. Patterson v. State, 391 So.2d 344 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); G.W.B. v. State, 340 So.2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 948 (Fla.1977). See also Magueria v. State, 352 So.2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Second, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in "striking" his defense of insanity allegedly induced by use of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. State, 74113
...to establish the existence of this mitigating circumstance. Holsworth v. State, 522 So.2d 348, 352 (Fla.1988); Johnson v. State, 478 So.2d 885, 886-87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), dismissed, 488 So.2d 830 We reject Robinson's argument that a mistrial should have been granted because the venire may h......
-
Holsworth v. State
...other than the defendant's hearsay statements to the expert. Cirack v. State, 201 So.2d 706, 708-10 (Fla.1967); Johnson v. State, 478 So.2d 885, 886-87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). See also Jones v. State, 289 So.2d 725, 728-29 (Fla.1979). Here, the primary basis for Dr. Varsida's proffered opinion ......
-
Jaggers v. State, 86-2344
...ground relied upon in assigning error must be advanced in the trial court to preserve the point for appellate review. Johnson v. State, 478 So.2d 885 (Fla.3d DCA 1985); Cornwell v. State, 425 So.2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In Johnson, the district court rejected the defendant's argument in......
-
FB v. State
...motion, thus allowing the State to correct the error, if indeed it is correctable, before the trial concludes. See Johnson v. State, 478 So.2d 885, 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (noting that "[h]ad counsel complied with the rule and specifically brought the ground now urged to the trial court's at......