LAWRENCE CHARLES BISHOP, 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 first-degree murder and armed robbery convictions, rejecting claims of prosecutorial misconduct, jury misconduct, and improper limitation of cross-examination regarding a witness's juvenile record.
The trial court properly limited cross-examination of a state witness regarding her juvenile record where the appellant failed to proffer specific matters and presented no record support for claims of probation status.
[1] A trial court does not reversibly err in limiting cross-examination of a witness regarding juvenile record where the defendant fails to proffer specific matters and prese…
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 intelligenceLawrence Charles Bishop was convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery. The trial court refused to permit cross-examination of one of the stat…
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 Juvenile Record cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from convictions for first degree murder and armed robbery. Upon review of the record we find the evidence was sufficient to sustain both convictions. We reject appellant’s claim of fundamental error with reference to the prosecutor’s closing argument. We also find no reversible error in the manner in which the trial court conducted proceedings concerning the conduct of the jury. See Hall v. State, 420 So. 2d 872 (Fla.1982); State v. Melendez, 244 So. 2d 137 (Fla.1971). Finally, we find no reversible error in the trial court’s refusal to permit appellant to cross-examine one of the state’s witnesses regarding her juvenile record. The appellant’s claim that the witness may have been on probation has no support in the record. Cf. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974). The appellant made no effort at trial or before to proffer to the court any particular matters that the appellant wished to present to the jury. Bennett v. State, 405 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). In addition, the appellant was permitted to elicit from this witness and others considerable evidence of this witness’s past misconduct.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences entered by the trial court.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and HERSEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goodman v. State, 567 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…o convict and sentence for the possession of a firearm, which arose out of the single act of the alleged second degree murder. We affirm on the first point upon this record. See Lawton v. State, 538 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Bishop v. State, 438 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); § 39.12(7) Florida Statutes (1987). And as to the second point, the state concedes error on the following authority, Ambroa v. State, 547 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Smith v. State, 539 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Henderso…
-
Torrence Lawton v. State, 538 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…impeaching certain of the state’s witnesses with juvenile delinquency adjudications. This is so because it is clear that the above evidence is patently inadmissible in Florida. McCartney v. State, 510 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Bishop v. State, 438 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); § 90.610(1)(b), Fla.Stat. (1987). Finally, the trial court properly departed from the sentencing guidelines in imposing the sentences below based on an unscored first-degree murder conviction. See McPhaul v. State, 496 So. 2d 1…
-
Bishop v. State, 527 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…tion filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm the denial of appellant’s motion, which was without prejudice to refile. Appellant’s conviction for first-degree murder and robbery was affirmed. See Bishop v. State, 438 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). In February 1986, appellant filed here an unsworn, petition for habeas corpus, alleging his confession was the result of undue influence. Another panel of the court denied the petition. In May 1986, appellant filed two motions…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974)
- State v. Melendez, 244 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 1971)
- Hall v. State, 420 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 1982)
- Bennett v. State, 405 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)