Russell v. State, 72--668
| Decision Date | 15 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--668,72--668 |
| Parties | Odell RUSSELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Bennett H. Brummer, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ., and WARD, CHARLES LAVON, Associate Judge.
The defendant appeals from a judgment finding him guilty of second degree murder pursuant to a verdict of the jury. A single point is presented on appeal. This point urges that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence resulting from an alleged warrantless search not incident to a lawful arrest.
An eyewitness testified to the fact that the appellant killed a woman in whose house he was living. The eyewitness was the murdered woman's son. This eyewitness account was corroborated by the testimony of another witness who also placed the defendant at the scene at the time of the killing. The victim's son telephoned the police. A police officer discovered the gun used in the killing under defendant's mattress.
Appellant made a motion to suppress the evidence which was seized by the arresting officer and a hearing was held prior to the trial. The officer stated that the victim's son pointed out to him where the gun was. The defendant had already been placed under arrest when the search took place. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, defense counsel did not submit any evidence to contradict the statement of the arresting officer that the defendant had been admitted to the house by the victim's son, nor did defense counsel contradict the testimony of the officer that the son had pointed out the place where the gun was hidden. The argument made by defense counsel as to the gun was that it should be suppressed because no search warrant was obtained. The judge denied the motion to suppress. The law is uniform that a defendant who complains of an unlawful search must claim and prove that he was at the time of the search the owner, tenant, or lawful occupant of the premises searched. Rivers v. State, Fla.1969, 226 So.2d 337; Mixon v. State, Fla.1957, 54 So.2d 190; Church v. State, 151 Fla. 24, 9 So.2d 164 (1942); Moore v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1971, 248 So.2d 262; Robinson v. State, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 29; Testasecca v. State, Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 584; Alexander v. State, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 261; Tribue v. State, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 630.
At the time of the trial court's ruling on the motion to suppress, the evidence before the court established that the eyewitness to the crime, the victim's son, took the police officer into his home and showed the police officer a gun which the eyewitness knew belonged to the defendant. It was certainly proper for the victim's son to allow police officers access to his home. Therefore, we hold that the trial judge did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
Appellant argues, however, that he is entitled to the benefit of testimony which was brought out during the trial and prior to the admission of the gun into evidence. He relies upon testimony of the husband of the deceased that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herman v. State
...upon which a different verdict could have been reached, if admission of the shotgun was error, it was harmless. See Russell v. State, 270 So.2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); § 924.33, Fla.Stat. POINT VII The issue here presented is the propriety of the denial by the trial court of a motion for mi......
-
Sastre v. State, s. 85-1476
...3d DCA 1982); Mainor v. State, 415 So.2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Kujawa v. State, 405 So.2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Russell v. State, 270 So.2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Defendant, Sastre, contends that the trial court erred in denying the request to produce the CI's current address. Producti......
-
Kishel v. State, 73--4
...4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960). See also State v. Leveson, Fla.1963, 151 So.2d 283; Robinson v. State, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 29; Russell v. State, Fla.App.1972, 270 So.2d 462; Godbee v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 441; McCain v. State, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 841; Tribue v. State, Fla.App.1958, ......
-
Winchell v. State, 77-1738
...standing to challenge the stopping of the vehicle. See, e. g., United States v. Sacco, 436 F.2d 780 (2d Cir. 1971); and Russell v. State, 270 So.2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Appellant contends in her fourth point on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting the marijuana into evidence be......