York v. State
| Decision Date | 14 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 1997,1997 |
| Citation | 232 So.2d 767 |
| Parties | Billy M. YORK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Benjamin T. Shuman of Waterhouse & Shuman, Orlando, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Defendant was charged with murder in the second degree. Found guilty by jury of manslaughter, he was duly adjudged and sentenced. He appeals. We affirm.
Challenged is the sufficiency of the proof in establishing the identity of the decedent. But, defendant did not object to the bulk of the identification testimony. While he hade a motion for a new trial, he abandoned it when he filed a notice of appeal while his motion was pending. Perez v. City of Tampa, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 571; State ex rel. Faircloth v. District Court of Appeal, Third District, Fla.1966, 187 So.2d 890. Thus, nowhere did he put the sufficiency of the evidence in issue before the trial court by motion for directed verdict, motion for new trial, or otherwise. This omission is fatal to defendant's position and he cannot now for the first time raise the question of insufficiency of evidence. State v. Wright, 224 So.2d 300, Supreme Court of Florida opinion filed June 18, 1969; Kimble v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 471; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 804; Gilbert v. State, 1941, 148 Fla. 293, 4 So.2d 330.
Next, defendant is aggrieved by a clause found in the court's charge on self defense.
F.S. Section 918.10(4), F.S.A., provides:
(Italics supplied.)
The form of defendant's objection was as follows:
'MR. CLEVELAND: For the record, Comes now the Defendant, by his Counsel, and objects to every general charge given by the Court and to the failure of the Court to give every requested charge by the Defendant.'
This objection obviously is most general and fails to specifically call attention to the matter to which defendant objected and totally failed to advise of the grounds. When considered in the light of the volume and varied content of the court's whole charge it is seen that it grossly failed to apprise the trial court of the real objection in order that it might be considered upon its merits and a proper and reasoned ruling made. If such objection were approved as sufficient, it would enable counsel to cloak and conceal a meritorious objection from the trial court which, had it been revealed with specificity, would have allowed the trial court to eliminate the objection and possible error. Used in this fashion the adroit defendant could build error into the record and so have insurance against an unfavorable verdict....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davison v. State
...to object to the error he now complains of, the appellant is precluded from asserting this as a ground for reversal. York v. State, 232 So.2d 767 (4th D.C.A., Fla.1969). Appellant presents arguments against the constitutionality of Fla.Stat. § 847.013, F.S.A. which reach beyond the pertinen......
-
Williams v. State
..."to every charge given and the failure to give every requested charge" does not comply with the rule, see, e. g., York v. State, 232 So.2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969), are thus inapposite. 4 Likewise, cases in which no objection was made to the trial court's refusal to instruct, see, e. g., Bai......
-
S.H. v. State, 3D18-365
...1978) (citing Rivers v. State, 307 So.2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 316 So.2d 285 (Fla.1975) ); see also York v. State, 232 So.2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). As the Florida Supreme Court has explained:This requirement is "based on practical necessity and basic fairness in the opera......
-
Courson v. State
...3.390. See Williams v. State, 399 So.2d 999 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); Wilson v. State, 383 So.2d 670 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); York v. State, 232 So.2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). An objection to the giving of all lesser-included offense instructions is not sufficiently "distinctive" where, as here, at le......