Smith v. State, 74--875
| Decision Date | 14 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--875,74--875 |
| Parties | James SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Kathleen Gallagher, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William L. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, HENDRY and NATHAN, JJ.
The defendant appeals from a conviction, following a trial by jury, for the crime of grand larceny.
He presents two points for review which it is urged constitute reversible error.
First, appellant contends that the trial court should have granted his motion for a judgment of acquittal because the state failed to introduce into evidence the property which the appellant was accused of stealing, to-wit: a power saw.
Appellant argues that the state's failure to produce the saw or introduce it into evidence during the trial effectively deprived him of his right to confront the evidence against him, citing this court's holdings in Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1971, 249 So.2d 470 aff'd, Fla.1973, 280 So.2d 673; and Alexander v. State, Fla.App.1974, 288 So.2d 538.
The record affirmatively shows that instead of producing the saw the state introduced two photographs taken of the saw shortly after the theft as well as a bill of sale for purposes of establishing its value.
At trial, the prosecutor informed the court that the saw was not available in count because it was being used by one of the victim's work crews.
The record further shows that the appellant, through his counsel, did not file a written motion to produce the saw until the day of the trial. When defense counsel repeated the motion verbally at trial, the following colloquy with the court took place:
'MR. COHEN (defense counsel): Judge, under the criminal rules of procedure, I have a right to look at the saw and inspect it to make sure it is the saw and it is in working order, and to ascertain the value of the saw.
We hold that the appellant's constitutional right of confrontation was not denied by the state's failure to produce the saw. This is so because the appellant has not made a sufficient showing that his defense was in any way prejudiced by the fact that the saw was not produced on the day of trial. See, Pizzo v. State, Fla.App.1974, 289 So.2d 26.
The appellant has not suggested that he desired to have an expert examine the saw to testify on the question of value. Indeed, had the appellant so wished he should have filed a motion to produce under the criminal discovery rule much earlier than he did. See, RCrP 3.220, F.S.A.
Defense counsel's broad statement that he wished to see if the saw was in working order (which came almost two months after the alleged theft) and to establish its value was not relevant, since the legal consideration in cases of this nature is the value of the property on the date of the theft.
We find this case distinguishable from the two cases ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C.S. v. State
...by use and condition, is sufficient to establish value. O.B. v. State, 858 So. 2d 1278, 1279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) ; see Smith v. State, 305 So. 2d 868, 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) ("[T]he purchase price in this case was sufficient to prove that the property exceeded $100 in value in light of the f......
-
Jones v. State, 77-719
...prejudiced by the state's failure to produce the requested evidence. Holman v. State, 347 So.2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Smith v. State, 305 So.2d 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Pizzo v. State, 289 So.2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). If the defense were prejudiced, Florida law would require reversal wheth......
-
K.W. v. State, 2D07-2889.
...could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the cell phone at the time of the theft was $100 or more. See Smith v. State, 305 So.2d 868, 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) ("We think the purchase price [$369.50] in this case was sufficient to prove that the property exceeded $100 in value in......
-
Harrison v. State, s. 80-2004
...that under Florida law, he has been prejudiced by the introduction of the photograph in lieu of the physical evidence. Smith v. State, 305 So.2d 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 316 So.2d 284 (Fla.1975). See, e. g., G.E.G. v. State, supra, Jones v. State, 360 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA We......