Smith v. State, s. 70--457
| Decision Date | 09 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | 70--458,Nos. 70--457,s. 70--457 |
| Citation | 243 So.2d 602 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Hollis SMITH and Edmond J. Duhart, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, Harold Ungerleider, Asst. Public Defender, and Ralph G. Goberna, Special Asst. Public Defender, for appellants.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
The defendants, Smith and Duhart, appeal from their judgments of conviction on the charge of robbery.
Smith argues that his conviction was based upon circumstantial evidence which did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. A review of the evidence refutes this argument. See Williams v. State, 73 Fla. 1198, 75 So. 785 (1917); Douglas v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 653, and Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24.
Duhart claims that the evidence of his identification was insufficient to sustain the jury verdict of guilty and the judgment of conviction. The record reveals sufficient, competent evidence concerning the identification of the defendant Duhart to submit this factual issue to the jury for determination. Harris v. State, 129 Fla. 733, 177 So. 187 (1937); and Stuckey v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 137.
Smith and Duhart claim that the state committed prejudicial and reversible error in making certain remarks in its closing arguments to the jury.
Counsel for the defendants did not object to the first remarks of the state in the closing argument. Defendants claim that these remarks were prejudicial for the first time on appeal. This they cannot do. We have examined the closing argument of the state, however, and find that the remarks complained of for the first time on appeal do not constitute findamental, or prejudicial error.
The prosecution did make one statement in closing argument which the defendants properly objected to and which objection was sustained. Defendants then moved for a mistrial which was denied and they charge that this ruling as reversible error. The denial of the motion of the defendants for a mistrial was proper in these circumstances. See Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850, 130 So. 582 (1930); and Burkhead v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 690.
The defendants' last point for reversal is that the trial court abused its discretion and erred in permitting an officer to testify as to their identity and to the date...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. State, 46416
...henceforth will review challenged argument of prosecutors only when an objection is timely made.' (emphasis supplied) Cf. Smith v. State, 243 So.2d 602 (Fla.App.1971); Hall v. State, 203 So.2d 202 As to those remarks to which appellant failed to object, this Court will not consider appellan......
-
Hood v. State, 73--531
...filed November 14, 1973; Williams v. State, Fla.1971, 247 So.2d 425; Willcox v. State, Fla.App.1972, 258 So.2d 298; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 602; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1967, 197 So.2d 829; DeLaine v. State, Fla.1972, 262 So.2d 655. But see Whitehead v. State, Fla.App.1971, ......
-
Young v. State, 75--995
...error are found to be without merit. State v. Jones, Fla.1967, 204 So.2d 515; Ricks v. State, Fla.App.1971, 242 So.2d 763; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 602; Henry v. State, Fla.App.1974, 290 So.2d 73; § 924.33, We hold that permitting the investigating officer to relate what the ......
-
Kruglak v. State, 73--1254
...for the first time on appeal. State v. Jones, Fla.1967, 204 So.2d 515; Hall v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 202; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 602. Appellant secondly argues that the trial court erred in allowing witnesses to testify for the state, whose identities were not supp......