DARNEL C. ATKINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Darnel C. Atkinson appeals his conviction for battery and trespass following a jury trial where he was acquitted of sexual battery and battery counts. The appellate court affirms, rejecting claims that the prosecutor improperly commented on his right not to testify, that jury instructions on burglary intent were inadequate, and that the court erred in refusing a circumstantial evidence instruction.
The prosecutor's comment was a reference to undisputed facts rather than Atkinson's failure to testify; the trial court's instruction on intent was adequate; and the circumstantial evidence instruction was not necessary because sufficient direct evidence existed.
[1] A prosecutor's comment during closing argument referring to an undisputed fact admitted by defense counsel is not an improper comment on the defendant's failure to testif…
[2] A jury instruction on burglary is adequate if it informs the jury that the defendant must have had a fully formed conscious intent to commit an offense at the time of ent…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Although Atkinson did not take the stand, through defense counsel he asserted the defense of consent to the sexual battery charge. We, therefore, conclude that the above comment was a mere reference to the undisputed fact that Atkinson had engaged in sexual relations with the victim and not a reference to his failure to testify.”
Establishes that the prosecutor's comment was permissible because it referenced facts admitted through defense counsel rather than commenting on Atkinson's silence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAtkinson was charged with burglary, sexual battery, battery, witness tampering, and burglary. He was tried by jury and acquitted on counts 2 and 3 (se…
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 Direct And Circumstantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-Appellant, Daniel C. Atkinson, was informed against for (1) burglary, (2) sexual battery, (3) battery, (4) witness tampering, and (5) burglary. He was tried by a jury and found not guilty as to counts 2 and 3 and guilty of battery (as to count 1) and trespass (as a lesser included offense of count 5). Count 4 was dismissed.
On appeal Atkinson urges as reversible error the denial of his motion for mistrial on the ground that the prosecutor improperly commented on his refusal to testify. This point arises out of the following remark made by the prosecutor during closing argument to the jury:
“The defendant admits to the sex taking place between he and J_ M_ He can’t deny that. There were two police officers and Roy Webb and William Layton who saw that.
“He doesn’t admit to how—
“MR. ROSENBLATT: Judge, objection.”
Although Atkinson did not take the stand, through defense counsel he asserted the defense of consent to the sexual battery charge. We, therefore, conclude that the above comment was a mere reference to the undisputed fact that Atkinson had engaged in sexual relations with the victim and not a reference to his failure to testify. See Budman v. State, 362 So. 2d 1022, 1027 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Simpson v. State, 352 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), and United States v. Capo, 595 F. 2d 1086, 1094-95 (5th Cir. 1979). Thus, this case is readily distinguishable from Watkins v. State, 363 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) upon which Atkinson relies because the comment therein was to the effect that the State’s evidence stood undenied by the defendant in contrast to the instant case where the act of sexual intercourse between Atkinson and the victim was admitted through defense counsel. Furthermore, we note that the subject remark obviously was related only to the sexual battery charge of which Atkinson was acquitted.
Atkinson secondly contends that the trial court did not adequately instruct the jury on the crime of burglary in that the court failed to fully instruct the jurors on the proof of intent. We cannot agree.
A review of the record reveals that the trial court did instruct the jury that one of the elements of the crime of burglary which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that “at the time of the entering or remaining in the premises the defendant had a fully formed conscious intent to commit the offense, as to Count I, assault or battery”. This instruction was adequate to cover the element of intent as concerns the crime charged. See Dunlap v. State, 252 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); White v. State, 324 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). In addition, Atkinson failed to object to the subject instruction although he was given several opportunities to do so and, therefore, he cannot raise this issue on appeal for the first time. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.390(d) and Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978).
Last, Atkinson argues that the trial court erred in denying his request to instruct the jury on circumstantial evidence in that the prosecution relied upon circumstantial evidence to prove various aspects of the burglary charge.
Again, the record reflects that Atkinson failed to object to the denial of his requested instruction on circumstantial evidence. Moreover, such an instruction was not necessary because there was sufficient direct evidence. See State v. Anderson, 270 So. 2d 353 (Fla.1972). Thus, this point lacks merit.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalez v. State, 399 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Wetherington v. State, 263 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Garmise v. State, 311 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Codie v. State, 313 So. 2d 754 (Fla.1975); Bristow v. State, 338 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Atkinson v. State, 378 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Teague v. State, 390 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 5th DCA 1976); Bassett v. State, 392 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.390(d).…
-
Isidro Rodriguez v. State, 433 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Tennant v. State, 205 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). See Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978); Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1978); Mead v. State, 381 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Atkinson v. State, 378 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Hamilton v. State, 152 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); Jackson v. State, 107 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). His failure precludes relief on this issue. Next, Rodriguez presents a question which poses little difficulty for us in d…
-
James v. State, 393 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ew, to preserve the point for appellate review, and, accordingly, I would affirm on that basis alone. Kelly v. State, 389 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), as adopted and followed in Bailey v. State, 393 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Atkinson v. State, 378 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); White v. State, 324 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. dismissed, 339 So. 2d 1173 (Fla.1976); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.390(d); see Tascano v. State, 393 So. 2d 540 (Fla.1980).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978)
- United States v. Capo, 595 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir. 1979)
- White v. State, 324 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Bruno v. State, 270 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1972)
- State v. Anderson, 270 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1972)
- Ezekial Simpson v. State, 352 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Watkins v. State, 363 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Pace v. State, 362 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Budman v. State, 362 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Dunlap v. State, 252 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)