LAWRENCE C. MOORE, 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.
Lawrence Moore appealed his conviction for burglary, sexual battery, robbery, aggravated battery, unlawful firearm possession, and dealing in stolen property. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error and rejecting Moore's challenges to a police witness's inadvertent statement about photograph sources and the prosecutor's rebuttal testimony regarding Moore's home address.
The court held that the police witness's statement did not require a mistrial because it did not necessarily convey to the jury that the defendant had committed prior crimes, and any error would have been cured by jury instruction. The prosecutor's introduction of the home address was either not harmful error or waived due to an insufficient objection on relevancy grounds rather than the proper hearsay objection.
[1] The weight and legal sufficiency of evidence can support a jury verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
[2] An inadvertent witness statement that a photograph came from police files does not necessarily require a mistrial, especially if the prosecution's intent was to show the…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The evidence, by its weight and legal sufficiency, supports the jury verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Establishes the court's finding that the jury verdict was supported by sufficient evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMoore was convicted by jury of burglary, sexual battery, three counts of robbery, aggravated battery, unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged i…
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 Waiver Of Objections cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted of burglary, sexual battery, robbery (three counts), aggravated battery, unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense, and dealing in stolen property (six counts). No reversible error is demonstrated by this appeal.
The evidence, by its weight and legal sufficiency, supports the jury verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120, 1123 (Fla.1981), aff’d, 454 U.S. 963, 102 S.Ct. 502, 70 L.Ed.2d 378 (U.S.1982); Knight v. State, 392 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
A police witness’s inadvertent statement while testifying that “I got the picture from the files” in response to the prosecutor’s inquiry as to how a photographic line-up was assembled did not require a mistrial. The prosecutor was obviously seeking to establish, as shown by succeeding questions, that the line-up was non-suggestive. The fact that a photograph, cropped of its customary “mug shot” markings, is in police files does not necessarily convey to a jury that a defendant has committed prior crimes or has previously been in trouble with the police; a jury instruction to that effect, if requested and given, would have cured the error. See Loftin v. State, 273 So. 2d 70 (Fla.1973); Mancebo v. State, 350 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Appellant further contends here that the prosecutor’s reading of the defendant’s home address to the jury from an arrest affidavit not in evidence, for the purpose of destroying an alibi defense by showing that the defendant lived and was near the scene when the crime was committed, constituted improper rebuttal.
We find it was not harmful error, and even if it had been, an objection grounded solely on relevancy was insufficient to preserve the issue for review.
The testimony was quite relevant. A proper objection to the testimony would have been that it was hearsay. Rolle v. State, 416 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
If a proper objection is not interposed at the time the evidence is presented, the appellant will be deemed to have waived his objection. United States v. Fox, 613 F. 2d 99 (5th Cir. 1980) (claim of error in not establishing proper foundation to rely on coconspirator objection to hearsay rule was waived where the specific ground of objection asserted at trial was irrelevancy); Reis v. State, 248 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Bertone v. State, 224 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 943, 90 S.Ct. 1860, 26 L.Ed.2d 279 (1970); see Roban v. State, 384 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), pet. for review denied, 392 So. 2d 1378 (Fla.1980) (defendants who relied on different ground for objection at trial to introduction of evidence than on motion to suppress waived previous grounds relied upon).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
McCALL v. State, 463 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ruction to jury cured error of witness’s reference to police photo lineup); Evans (where eyewitness made identification, reference to mug shot does not require reversal because jury instruction, if requested, would have cured error); Moore v. State, 418 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (jury instruction, if requested and given, would have cured error of witness’s statement that defendant’s photograph was obtained from police files). Cf Harris (cautionary instruction did not cure prejudicial impact of testimony o…
-
Evans v. State, 422 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…Usually, a reference to mug shots does not necessitate an automatic reversal; rather the question must be resolved on the [*61] basis of the entire record and surrounding circumstances. See Loftin v. State, 273 So. 2d 70 (Fla.1973); Moore v. State, 418 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Mancebo v. State, 350 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Appellant concedes that identification of defendant as a person in the store on the date of the theft is not an issue. The real question is whether the circumstantial evidence…1 / 2
-
Williams v. State, 438 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…mmitted prior crimes or has previously been in trouble with the police,” and a jury instruction to that effect, had one been requested, which here it was not, would cure any error, Evans v. State, 422 So. 2d 60, 61 (Fla.3d DCA 1982); Moore v. State, 418 So. 2d 435, 436 (Fla.3d DCA 1982); and (3) in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt,2 any undissipated prejudice arising from the police officer’s testimony must be deemed harmless error. Affirmed. . In our view, this explanation was…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (15 total)
- Delbert Lee Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)
- Reis v. State, 248 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- United States v. FOX, 613 F.2d 99 (5th Cir. 1980)
- Loftin v. State, 273 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1973)
- Bertone v. State, 224 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Roban v. State, 384 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Bridges v. State, 392 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Knight v. State, 392 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Mancebo v. State, 350 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Hall v. United States, 398 U.S. 943 (U.S. 1970)