Peacock v. State, E-105
| Decision Date | 04 February 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. E-105,E-105 |
| Citation | 160 So.2d 541 |
| Parties | John Aaron PEACOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
A. K. Black, Lake City, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and A. G. Spicola, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, John Aaron Peacock, was jointly indicted with one Mike Romanello upon a charge of breaking and entering the dwelling of another with intent to commit grand larceny. He was separately tried by jury, convicted and adjudged guilty, hence this appeal. We affirm.
The material facts are the same as set out in the opinion of this court this day filed in the separate appeal of appellant's co-defendant, styled Romanello v. State of Florida, Fla.App., 160 So.2d 529, and reference is had thereto to the extent applicable on this appeal.
The first, second, third and fifth points of law related by our opinion in the Romanello case are identical with poins of law presented by appellant Peacock on this appeal. Appellant's contentions in these particulars are found to be without merit for the same reasons stated by our said opinion in the Romanello case. Appellant Peacock presents and argues the following additional point of law for disposition on this appeal: Whether the court erred in permitting witness Murphy to testify concerning his visual comparison of a mold of automobile tire marks imprinted on the ground and the tread of tires on the automobile of the appellant.
Here, as in the Romanello appeal, appellant Peacock's primary thrust is directed to the acts of the Florida Highway Patrol in stopping the automobile driven by him, arresting him, searching the automobile and his person without benefit of a search warrant, and seizing from the automobile articles that were subsequently used in evidence. The material evidence on this trial pertaining to the probable cause for appellant's arrest and the subsequent search and seizure is substantially the same as that adduced on the trial of Romanello and outlined in our opinion on his appeal. Our conclusions in that case on the parallel points of law involved apply with like force to this appeal and it would serve no useful purpose to repeat them here.
On the additional point of law presented by this appeal, we have carefully reviewed the testimony given by witness Grady Murphy, a deputy sheriff of Taylor County, Florida, touching upon casts made by him of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reynolds v. State
...lay opinion. See id. It distinguished its decision from those in Floyd v. State, 569 So.2d 1225 (Fla.1990), and Peacock v. State, 160 So.2d 541 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964), in which this Court and the First District, respectively, admitted opinion testimony from law enforcement. In Floyd, this Cour......
-
Floyd v. State
...between the tire tracks found at the scene and the tire tread on Floyd's motorcycle would have been rejected. See Peacock v. State, 160 So.2d 541, 542-43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964) (visual comparison of casts of tire prints from victim's property with tires of defendant's car was one upon which de......
-
Jones v. State
...the "stash house" window sill was made by the recoil of a high-powered rifle. This argument is also without merit. In Peacock v. State, 160 So.2d 541 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964), cert. denied, 168 So.2d 148 (1965), the court of appeal found similar non-expert testimony to be admissible and allowed ......
-
Johnston v. State
...this instance is analogous to the non-expert testimony held admissible in Jones v. State, 440 So.2d 570 (Fla.1983), and Peacock v. State, 160 So.2d 541 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 168 So.2d 148 (Fla.1964), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 916, 85 S.Ct. 1541, 14 L.Ed.2d 436 (1965). In Jones, we held......