MICHAEL ULLOA, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding sufficiency of evidence, cross-examination, and admission of testimony.
[1] Evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for second degree murder when viewed in a light most favorable to the state.
[2] Cross-examination regarding a victim's prior homicide is inadmissible when an adequate predicate of self-defense has not been laid.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was convicted of second degree murder. He appealed, arguing insufficient evidence, improper restriction of cross-examination regarding the v…
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 Preservation Of Error For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant Michael Ulloa appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence for second degree murder contending on appeal that: (1) the trial court erred in failing to grant his motions for judgment of acquittal below on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for second degree murder, (2) the trial court erred in preventing the defendant from cross-examining the wife of the defendant as to a prior murder committed by the victim of the homicide herein, and (3) the trial court erred in permitting the state to discuss cocaine in the cause. After carefully examining these contentions together with the record and applicable law we find that no error was committed herein. We accordingly affirm.
First, the evidence is more than sufficient in this case to sustain a conviction for second degree murder. We recognize that the evidence is somewhat in conflict but viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, as we must on this appeal, it is plain that the trial court committed no error in denying the defense motion for a judgment of acquittal below. Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1974); Huntley v. State, 66 So. 2d 504 (Fla.1953); § 782.04(2), Fla.Stat. (1981).
Second, we see no error in restricting the cross-examination of one of the state’s witnesses with reference to a prior homicide committed by the victim herein. An adequate predicate of self-defense had not been laid at that point and such testimony was accordingly not admissible at that time. See Williams v. State, 252 So. 2d 243, 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), cert. denied, 255 So. 2d 682 (Fla.1971).
Third, we see no error in the admission of testimony concerning the theft of cocaine in this case and in any event this alleged error was not preserved for appellate review by a proper objection at trial. Sired v. State, 399 So. 2d 964, 968 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 984, 102 S.Ct. 2257, 72 L.Ed.2d 862 (1982); German v. State, 379 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1113 (Fla.1980).
The judgment of conviction and sentence appealed from is in all respects
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ulloa v. State, 486 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…N, Judge. In 1982, Michael Ulloa, indicted for first-degree murder, was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder and sentenced to a [*1374] thirty-year term of imprisonment. The following year, this court affirmed his conviction. Ulloa v. State, 441 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Neither at his trial nor on his appeal did Ulloa complain about the fact that the jurors that convicted him were separated for a weekend after they had begun their deliberations on a Friday afternoon. In 1984, the Supreme Court…
-
Alonso v. State, 821 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…ikely to cause serious personal injury....” Id. In ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal, the court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. P.M. v. State, 719 So. 2d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Ulloa v. State, 441 So. 2d 169, 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). According to the victim, the defendant forced her onto the bed, facing down, causing her to be unable to breath. She felt that she was suffocating. There was an anal penetration, and the victim testified that the pain was h…
-
Augustine Daniel Chery v. State, 642 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…the inadmissibility of reputation evidence concerning the murder victim herein; indeed, defense counsel agreed with this ruling and presented no reputation witnesses at any time during trial as apparently there were none to present. Ulloa v. State, 441 So. 2d 169, 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Williams v. State, 238 So. 2d 137, 139 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 241 So. 2d 397 (Fla.1970); see also Diaz v. Rodriguez, 384 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). (b) The trial court did not err in failing to conduct an inquiry…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1974)
- Sireci v. State, 399 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1981)
- Federated Publ'ns, Inc. v. Swedberg, 456 U.S. 984 (U.S. 1982)
- Jacks v. Duckworth, 456 U.S. 984 (U.S. 1982)
- Noble Williams v. State, 252 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- German v. State, 379 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Huntley v. State (two cases), 66 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1953)
- D. F. S., Inc. v. Beasley Crane Serv. & Sales, Inc., 255 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Luman, 255 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 1971)