Orr v. State, 78-805
| Decision Date | 12 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-805,78-805 |
| Citation | 380 So.2d 1185 |
| Parties | Reginald S. ORR, etc., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. /T4-89. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Tatjana Ostapoff, Chief, Appellate Div., Asst. Public Defender, and Gary S. Israel, Legal Intern, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and John D. Ceclian, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant was charged, by amended information, in three counts with Count I, Burglary of a Dwelling; Count II, Grand Theft, and Count III, Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. A Motion for Severance of Offenses was filed alleging that Counts I and II were improperly joined with Count III; that motion was denied. The court entered a Directed Verdict of acquittal as to Count I. Appellant was found guilty of Count II, Grand Theft; and Count III, Possession of a Firearm by a convicted felon.
A single point is raised by this appeal: was a severance of Count III from Counts I and II required to promote a fair determination of Appellant's guilt or innocence? Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.152(a)(2).
Appellant was discovered in Winter Park carrying a shotgun and a duffel bag. He told the investigating officer that he had found the shotgun, the bag, and another gun in a trash can. Some four hours later the police received a report of a burglary in the same area as the trash can. The owner identified the articles found in Appellant's possession, including the shotgun, as taken from his residence.
In Eagle v. State, 249 So.2d 460, 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971), the court stated, "Absent compelling reasons to the contrary, the trial courts of this state should insist that where several indictments or informations are filed against the same defendant constituting separate offenses growing out of the same transaction or occurrence, such indictments or informations should be consolidated and disposed of in one trial." The court emphasized that the charges grew out of the same transaction or occurrence, the same witnesses testified, and essentially the same evidence was addressed.
In the case before us, the element that defendant was a convicted felon is necessary to prove Count III. That element is not necessary to prove Count II. In a normal trial, evidence revealing other crimes is admissible if it casts light upon the character of the act under investigation by showing motive, intent, absence of mistake, common scheme, identity or a system or general pattern of criminality so that the evidence of the prior offenses would have a relevant or material bearing on some essential aspect of the offense being tried. Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959). In the case before us, Appell...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Panzavecchia v. Wainwright, 80-5984
...Florida courts now recognize the great prejudice resulting from a denial of a motion to sever in a case such as this. In Orr v. State, 380 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), the defendant was charged with grand theft and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. A joint trial was ......
-
Craft v. State, 83-766
...on all charges. Id. at 1091. Severance should have been granted. See also Thomas v. State, 440 So.2d 581 (Fla.1983); Orr v. State, 380 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Although the firearm was a basis for each of the charges filed against Craft, proof of the prior felony conviction was only ......
-
Thames v. State, AY-188
...as to whether a defendant was entitled to severance of a count charging possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Orr v. State, 380 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The weight of authority throughout the country held that severance was required. See, Vazquez v. State, 405 So.2d 177, 180 ......
-
Smith v. State, 82-340
...on the charges in those cases enumerated in footnote one of this opinion. 1 State v. Vazquez, 419 So.2d 1088 (Fla.1982); Orr v. State, 380 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). In two of the cases to be retried (Case Nos. 81-898 and 81-900), Smith can only be retried for the lesser included offen......