Walker v. State
| Decision Date | 05 March 1943 |
| Parties | WALKER v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pinellas County; John U. Bird judge.
William C Pierce and W. K. Zewadski, both of Tampa, for appellant.
J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., and Woodrow M. Melvin and John C. Wynn Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Russell T. Walker was tried and convicted of breaking and entering a store building occupied by Rutland Brothers, Inc., in St Petersburg, Florida, with intent to commit grand larceny. The building was entered in the nighttime. There were no eye witnesses to the crime. The outer doors of a safe had been broken open. The burglars had failed in their efforts to open the inner doors of the safe, which would have permitted access to a strong box containing approximately $8,800.
Entrance into the store building had been effected by breaking open a second-story window which opened onto the roof of an adjoining building. Heel marks and shoe prints on the tar and gravel roof indicated that two men had entered the building. One of them had been wearing a pair of Florsheim shoes estimated to be approximately size 9. When Russell T. Walker was arrested several weeks after the burglary, he was wearing a pair of Florsheim shoes, size 9D.
From the facts that a jury might find, it appears that Walker and his wife and one Dapos came to St. Petersburg several days before the crime. Walker brought with him a travelling bag containing two pistols, a crowbar, a drill, a flashlight, gloves, lead pencil, chalk, rope. He turned the bag over to a friend in St. Petersburg to keep until called for. He called for the bag the day of the burglary.
When Walker first came to St. Petersburg, he made the acquaintance of one Pee Wee Heller. During the course of a conversation, he inquired of Heller if he knew 'where there was any place around the city where there would be some safes with money in them.' He made an offer to Heller to 'cut him in'. According to Heller, he refused to have anything to do with the proposition; but Walker persisted, saying, 'We are not going to tell you what we do, but you can look in the papers and you will see.' On the evening of the burglary, Walker confided to a friend who was a bartender in a cafe: 'Rutland's is the best place'.
Approximately 10:30 the night of the crime, Walker and Dapos left the cafe where they had been loitering and drinking, telling the bartender that they would return later in the evening. Some hours later they returned, dishevelled, tired, sweaty, dirty. At that time Walker told Pee Wee Heller: Heller asked where this had happened. Walker answered: 'The big department store down on the corner--Rutland's'.
The morning paper carried a news item that the store building occupied by Rutland Brothers, Inc. had been burglarized the night before.
At a later date Walker was arrested, charged with the crime. While out on bond and awaiting trial Walker talked with his bartender friend, asking him to keep silent and to tell Heller to do likewise.
Some days...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porter v. State
... ... The same rule applies when the evidence is objected to at trial on grounds which are abandoned on appeal. Ashford v. State, 274 So.2d 517 (Fla.1973); Jalbert v. State, 95 So.2d 589, 591 (Fla.1957); Walker" v. State, 152 Fla. 455, 13 So.2d 4 (1943); Sims v. State, 59 Fla. 38, 52 So. 198 (1910); Ferrell v. State, 45 Fla. 26, 34 So. 220 (1903); Jones v. State, 35 Fla. 289, 17 So. 284 (1895); Koran v. State, 213 So.2d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Shea v. State, 167 So.2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Jones v. State
... ... State, 58 So.2d 872 (Fla.1952) (state's evidence deemed sufficient to link the defendant to a criminal homicide committed in a rooming house; manslaughter conviction upheld); Walker v. State, 152 Fla. 455, 13 So.2d 4 (1943) (state's evidence deemed sufficient to link defendant to the burglary of a store; burglary conviction upheld); Chason v. State, 148 Fla. 540, 4 So.2d 691 (1941) (state's evidence deemed sufficient to sustain a second degree murder conviction); Victor v ... ...
-
Martin v. State
... ... The same rule applies when the evidence is objected to at trial on grounds which are abandoned on appeal. Ashford v. State, 274 So.2d 517 (Fla. 1973); Jalbert v. State, 95 So.2d 589, 591 (Fla. 1957); Walker" v. State, 152 Fla. 455, 13 So.2d 4 (1943); Sims v. State, 59 Fla. 38, 52 So. 198 (1910); Ferrell v. State, 45 Fla. 26, 34 So. 220 (Fla. 1903); Jones v. State, 35 Fla. 289, 17 So. 284 (Fla. 1895); Koran v. State, 213 So.2d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Shea v. State, 167 So.2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Kiraly v. State
... ... United States, 340 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 438, 95 L.Ed. 344. Furthermore, defense counsel failed to timely object to such cross-examination but, rather, proceeded to inquire further into the subject on redirect. As a result, the appellant cannot be heard to object thereto by this appeal. Walker v ... State, 152 Fla. 455, 13 So.2d 4; Montalvo v. State, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 713 ... Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the conviction and sentence here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed ... Affirmed ... --------------- ... 'MR. JACOBS: ... ...