Rolle v. State
| Decision Date | 07 November 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--54,72--54 |
| Citation | 268 So.2d 541 |
| Parties | James Leroy ROLLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack J. Taffer, Miami, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Richard Rosen (Legal Intern), for appellee.
Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
Defendant-appellant, James Leroy Rolle, was charged by information with aggravated assault and robbery and his trial before a jury resulted in a conviction on both counts.
The first point raised on appeal is directed to alleged prejudicial error resulting from the prosecutor's questioning of defendant concerning admissions purportedly made by him but which were denied and not proven by impeachment of defendant through the testimony of other witnesses. While a representative of the State Attorney's office must vigorously perform all his functions as a prosecutor, he also has the responsibility to ensure that the accused has a fair and impartial trial. Marsh v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 222; Gonzalez v. State, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 127. Part of the prosecutor's responsibility is to refrain from striking the 'foul blows' contemplated by the United States Supreme Court in Berger v. U.S., 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314. At all times a prosecutor cannot overstep the bounds of propriety and fairness and he must not resort to improper methods to produce a wrongful conviction. Deas v. State, 119 Fla. 839, 161 So. 729 (1935); Berger, supra. In the instant case the prosecutor did not violate the above guidelines by asking questions which laid the foundation for impeachment where no further attempt to impeach was made. If any error resulted from this conduct it was merely harmless error. Landrum v. State, 79 Fla. 189, 84 So. 535 (1920).
Defendant's next point on appeal questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict of guilty to the offense of robbery. One element of the robbery statute, F.S. § 813.011, F.S.A. requires that the robber's victim be put in fear of great bodily harm. Croft v. State, 117 Fla. 832, 158 So. 454 (1935); Martin v. State, 100 Fla. 16, 129 So. 112 (1930); Stephens v. State, 92 Fla. 43, 109 So. 303 (1926). In the case sub judice this element of the crime was adequately met when the victim stated during the trial: Additional evidence presented at trial showed that defendant had a weapon in his possession when he was apprehended by the police. From this the jury could infer that the victim relinquished the money to the robber to prevent himself from being shot.
The remaining points raised by defendant concern the in c...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferguson v. State
...the error. This is not an example of resort to improper methods to obtain convictions as suggested by the defendant. Rolle v. State, 268 So.2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). The trial court acted within its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for mistrial. Johnsen v. State, 332 So.2d 69 A......
-
Love v. State, 90-1015
...in fear when he started the car. That evidence was sufficient to submit the cause to the jury on the robbery charge. Rolle v. State, 268 So.2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); see Brown v. State, 397 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Thomas v. State, 183 So.2d 297, 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); see also McC......
-
Huntley v. State, 89-398
...DCA 1986); Robinson v. State, 462 So.2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Berezovsky v. State, 335 So.2d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Rolle v. State, 268 So.2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Thomas v. State, 183 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); § 924.33, Florida Statutes ...
-
Harden v. State, 74-523
...would appear that under the stress of trial they allow their advocacy to exceed their responsibility so clearly defined in Rolle v. State, Fla.App.1972, 268 So.2d 541: 'While a representative of the State Attorney's office must vigorously perform all his functions as a prosecutor, he also h......