Raysor v. State, s. 72--61
Decision Date | 12 February 1973 |
Docket Number | Nos. 72--61,72--62,s. 72--61 |
Citation | 272 So.2d 867 |
Parties | Ricky RAYSOR and Raymond Raysor, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Roosevelt LESTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Edward M. Kay, of Varon, Stahl & Kay, Hollywood, for appellants.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Nelson E. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
This was a not unusual criminal case based upon charges of robbery. Those convicted upon trial by jury appeal the resulting judgments. The cases were consolidated for purposes of appeal. We affirm the convictions of defendants-appellants, Ricky Raysor and Raymond Raysor, because they failed to demonstrate any reversible errors. We reverse the conviction of Roosevelt Lester because the court violated Rule 3.250, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 1, 33 F.S.A.
Although Lester qualified under the Rule for an entitlement for the concluding argument before the jury, and requested same, the request was denied without explanation and the state was permitted the opening and closing jury arguments.
The state does not deny the error and simply rests upon the premise that same was harmless because Lester has failed to demonstrate prejudice accruing to him by reason of the denial.
We believe the state's position to be unsound and particularly in light of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Florida in Birge v. State, Fla.1957, 92 So.2d 819, at pages 821 and 822:
'We are therefore compelled to the conclusion that the denial of this right to the appellant was a substantial prejudicial error which requies a new trial.'
See also Davis v. State, Fla.App.1971, 256 So.2d 22; Cagnina v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 577, and Wyatt v. State, Fla.App.1972, 270 So.2d 47. In further extension, we are at a loss as a practical matter to know just how any criminal defendant could in fact make a demonstration of error because of the refusal of the trial court to follow the dictates of the Rule. It is inherent in the procedure, as all acquainted with trial tactics know, that the right to address the jury finally is a fundamental advantage which simply speaks for itself.
We do not know the rationale behind the denial of this vested procedural right...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wike v. State
...Morales; Hart v. State, 526 So.2d 124 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Gari. As the Fourth District Court of Appeal stated in Raysor v. State, 272 So.2d 867, 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973): [W]e are at a loss as a practical matter to know just how any criminal could in fact make a demonstration of error becau......
-
Gurican v. State, 89-125
...819 (Fla.1957); Hart v. State, 526 So.2d 124 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Dampier v. State, 336 So.2d 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Raysor v. State, 272 So.2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). Although we are fully cognizant of the settled state of this body of law, we consider that the instant case presents a sc......
-
Terwilliger v. State, s. 87-2024
...of guilty. See, e.g., Birge v. State, 92 So.2d 819 (Fla.1957); Staples v. State, 298 So.2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Raysor v. State, 272 So.2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). In the instant case, appellant neither testified nor offered any evidence in his behalf. He therefore was entitled to the la......
-
Wilson v. State, 73-450
...court. They are vested rights the denial of which constitutes reversible error. Birge v. State, Fla.1957, 92 So.2d 819; Raysor v. State, Fla.App.1973, 272 So.2d 867. As pointed out in Metheany v. United States, 365 F.2d 90, 94-95 (9th Cir. '. . . any misjoined defendant who suffer(s) a conv......