Young v. State, 75--995
| Decision Date | 20 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--995,75--995 |
| Citation | 330 So.2d 532 |
| Parties | Robert Lee YOUNG, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack R. Blumenfeld, Miami, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sidney Pertnoy, Legal Intern, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.
The appellant was charged with an information containing the following crimes: robbery, in violation of § 813.011, Fla.Stat., and unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense, in violation of § 813.011, Fla.Stat. During the trial, an investigator (who investigated the robberies that took place at a local supermarket) testified as to a conversation he had with certain purported eye witnesses as to where the purported robber placed his palm on the counter in order that he could instruct the fingerprint technician where to dust for prints. Upon cross-examination, defense counsel was limited by the trial court in that he was not permitted to cross-examine the investigating officer as to the witness' description to him of the purported robber.
At the charge conference, defense counsel requested the following charges be given in addition to the charge on the crime of robbery, to wit: assault with intent to commit robbery; aggravated assault; simple assault; grand larceny; and petit larceny. The trial court declined to instruct on the foregoing requests. The jury retired, reached a not guilty verdict on the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense, and reached a verdict of guilty on the robbery charge. An adjudication of guilt was entered and sentence was entered accordingly. This appeal ensued.
The appellant urges error in the above two rulings by the trial court. We find the appellant's contentions to be meritorious. The other rulings urged to be 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, Fla.Stat.
We hold that permitting the investigating officer to relate what the alleged eye witnesses saw, as to where the purported robber placed his palm print, opened up the investigating officer for cross-examination as to what description the alleged eye witnesses gave of the purported robber, as this constituted a part of the same 'subject matter' testified to by the investigating officer. See: Savage v. State, Fla.1882, 18 Fla. 909; Haager v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. State
...9, 1976); Silvestri v. State, 332 So.2d 351 (Fla.4th DCA 1976); Lightfoot v. State, 331 So.2d 388 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); Young v. State, 330 So.2d 532 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). We have considered appellant's other point on appeal and found it without merit. Accordingly, this cause is reversed and rema......
-
Jackson v. State
...1977). We reverse Jackson's robbery conviction and sentence and remand the cause to the trial court for a new trial. See Young v. State, 330 So.2d 532 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). Reversed and ...