Nova v. State, 76-959
| Decision Date | 17 May 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-959,76-959 |
| Citation | 346 So.2d 1214 |
| Parties | Louis NOVA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bernard S. Yedlin, Miami, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Ira N. Loewy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, C. J., and BARKDULL and NATHAN, JJ.
Appellant was charged by indictment with the stabbing death of Belinda Revel. A jury found him guilty of first degree murder and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Appellant raises two points on appeal. The first point refers to an alleged error of the trial judge in admitting the testimony of one Juanita Bentley, a co-worker-supervisor of the deceased, concerning the contents of a telephone conversation she heard between the deceased and appellant. The second point is directed to both the sufficiency and quality of the evidence introduced at trial to sustain a conviction for first degree murder.
Juanita Bentley testified at trial that both she and the deceased worked at a medical clinic in Hialeah, Florida. On the morning of October 12, 1974, prior to the time the deceased reported for work, Miss Bentley had answered three telephone calls from the same caller, asking for the deceased. When the deceased arrived at work, at 10:00 A.M., the same caller spoke to her and, as observed by Miss Bentley, the deceased became upset and began to cry.
Approximately five minutes later, the same man called again and asked for the deceased. (The caller's voice was identified as appellant's and was never denied by him). Juanita Bentley asked the deceased if she could listen in on the conversation between her and appellant. The deceased allegedly said yes, and Miss Bentley, unknown to appellant, lifted up the extension and listened to a part of the conversation.
According to Miss Bentley's testimony, the deceased told appellant that "she had a new man and not to bother her again." The appellant allegedly replied that if she did not see him when "he got off from work, he was going to kill her god damn ass." At this point Miss Bentley immediately hung up the phone, although the conversation continued for a few minutes longer. Over objection, the above testimony was admitted.
Appellant contends that Section 934.03(2)(d) Florida Statutes (1975), which prohibits the interception of oral or wire communication by a person unless "all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception" controls and that pursuant to Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1975), no part of the contents of such communication could be received at trial.
Appellee, the State of Florida, contends that there was no interception of the contents of the conversation, within the meaning of the above statutory section. Section 934.02(3) defines "intercept" to mean the "aural...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Otto
...would be in violation of this chapter."17 Two subsequent Florida decisions have reached similar conclusions. In Nova v. State (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977) 346 So.2d 1214, the court reversed a murder conviction, holding that the wiretap statute prohibited the testimony of a coworker of the victim ......
-
Nova v. State, 82-1766
...In that appeal, Nova's counsel raised two points, neither of which concerned the waiver of the twelve-person jury. See Nova v. State, 346 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), quashed, State v. Nova, 361 So.2d 411 (Fla.1978). In 1981, Nova, now without counsel, filed his first Rule 3.850 motion by......
-
State v. Nova
...Justice. This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court in Nova v. State, 346 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), which directly conflicts with Gerrard v. State, 345 So.2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); State v. Roman, 309 So.2d 12 (Fla. 4th DCA ......
-
Nova v. State, 76-959
...Before PEARSON, HENDRY and BARKDULL, JJ. ORDER ON MANDATE PER CURIAM. WHEREAS, the judgment of this court was entered on May 17, 1977 (346 So.2d 1214) reversing the judgment of the circuit court of Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; WHEREAS, on review of this court's judgment,......