ISAAC MCCRAY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court affirmed a second-degree murder conviction, holding that gruesome photographs of the victim's decomposed body were admissible as relevant evidence despite their inflammatory nature.
Photographs of a badly decomposed victim are admissible when relevant to the case, even if gruesome, and do not constitute reversible error.
[1] Photographs of a deceased victim, though gruesome and inflammatory, are admissible in evidence when relevant to the case, either independently or as corroborative of othe…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of second-degree murder. Six black and white photographs of the victim's badly decomposed body were admitted into evidence ove…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Inflammatory Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant raises several points from his conviction for second degree murder, the first being that the court erred in allowing into evidence six black and white photographs of the badly decomposed body of the victim over appellant’s objection that such photographs were irrelevant, inflammatory, and prejudicial. While the photographs were unquestionably gruesome, they were nevertheless relevant, either independently or as corroborative of other evidence and were therefore admissible. See Foster v. State, 369 So. 2d 928 (Fla.1979); Bauldree v. State, 284 So. 2d 196 (Fla.1973); State v. Young, 234 So. 2d 341 (Fla.1970). We find that appellant has not properly preserved for appellate review his pretrial motion for continuance since it was not renewed at the time of the trial; moreover, appellant’s counsel indicated at trial that he was in fact ready for trial. See Riggins v. State, 283 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Finally, as to the lower court’s alleged error in refusing to instruct on the character and reputation of the deceased, we find no error since there was no predicate established from the evidence introduced justifying the charge.
The judgment is in all respects AFFIRMED.
MILLS, Acting C. J., ERVIN, J. and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sandor Eduardo Guillen v. State, 189 So. 3d 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…for a continuance at the start of the trial and defense counsel actually stated that he was prepared to go to trial, the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the trial court’s denial of his motion for a continuance. See McCray v. State, 369 So. 2d 111, 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (“[A]ppellant has not properly preserved for appellate review his pretrial motion for continuance since it was not renewed at the time of the trial; moreover, appellant’s counsel indicated at trial that he was in fact ready…
-
Betty's Design Co., Inc. v. Est. OF David Evans & Mary Ann Evans, 863 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…n granting the new trial. We agree. Evans waived their right to seek a new trial based upon the trial judge’s denial of their pre-trial motion for a continuance by failing to renew said motion when the matter proceeded to trial. See McCray v. State, 369 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Therefore, the successor judge abused its discretion reversing the trial judge’s ruling and granting the motion for new trial. REVERSED and REMANDED for entry of a final judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict. THOMPSON…
Authorities Cited
- Foster v. State, 369 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 1979)
- Young v. State, 234 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1970)
- Bauldree v. State, 284 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1973)
- Riggins v. State, 283 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)