Ponder v. State
| Citation | 221 So.2d 437 |
| Decision Date | 15 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 68-564,68-564 |
| Parties | Wallace PONDER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Paul Pollack, and Jack Taffer, Miami, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.
In seeking reversal of his conviction for armed robbery, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in several respects, viz: that the corpus delicti was not proved; that identification evidence from a line-up, and by fingerprint was improperly allowed; and that the court improperly admitted confession statements. We have considered those contentions in the light of the record and briefs, and find them to be without merit. We reject appellant's argument that the evidence did not show the victim was put in fear. There was evidence force was used and that a cocked gun was held at the person's head. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, relied on with respect to the line-up, was not applicable as that case does not have retroactive reach (Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199). The circumstances relating to the fingerprint evidence justified its admission. There was testimony that the print was made at the time of the alleged offense. Regarding the confession, it was shown the defendant was properly warned of his rights under the Miranda decision, and on the evidence presented relating thereto, the court was not in error in ruling that the confession was freely and voluntarily made.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lattimore v. State, 89-2326
...therein. See State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 825 (Fla.1976); Knight v. State, 402 So.2d 435, 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Ponder v. State, 221 So.2d 437, 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); see also Bates v. State, 465 So.2d 490, 492 (Fla.1985) (slight victim injury; robbery proved), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 8......
-
Bunk v. State
...v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967). These rules are prospective and not retroactive in Florida. Ponder v. State, Fla.App.1969, 221 So.2d 437. The photographic identification challenged herein took place prior to June 12, 1967. Bunk was indicted on June 8, 1967 for......
-
Gilbert v. State, 75-971
...man, then the victim may be found to be in fear, and actual fear need not be strictly and precisely shown. See also Ponder v. State, 221 So.2d 437 (Fla.3d DCA 1969), and Solloa v. State, 227 So.2d 217 (Fla.3d DCA We see no reason why the same rule should not apply to aggravated assault. Tha......
-
McClain v. State, 79-705
...man, then the victim may be found to be in fear, and actual fear need not be strictly and precisely shown. See also Ponder v. State, 221 So.2d 437 (Fla.3d DCA 1969), and Solloa v. State, 227 So.2d 217 (Fla.3d DCA The evidence here was sufficient to prove the element of fear on the part of t......