MICHAEL ANTHONY BROWN, 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 admitting serologist testimony or in giving jury instructions concerning flight.
The appellant was convicted of burglary, sexual battery, robbery, and possession of a firearm. The victim identified the appellant based on a detailed…
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 Flight Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Brown appeals a final judgment entered on guilty verdicts of burglary, sexual battery, robbery and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony. The only issue at trial was identity.
Brown contends that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a serologist regarding a test which showed that Brown was included in a large group of the population that could have committed the sexual battery. Brown also contends that jury instructions concerning flight were improperly given.
The victim provided police with a detailed description of her assailant. She described him as a stocky, high-cheekboned, five-foot-eight-inch-tall black male with freckles. She made clear, convincing and unequivocal identifications of Brown both before trial, to the police from a photograph, and at trial, consistent with her description of his unusual facial characteristics.
In light of Daniels v. State, 108 So. 2d 755 (Fla.1959), we hold that the record supports the flight instruction given to the jury. Brown fled from and fought with police at the time of his arrest.
The serologist’s testimony regarding the blood test is admissible if material and relevant. On this record, as in Tejeda-Bermudez v. State, 427 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), we hold that if there was error in admitting such testimony, it was harmless.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walker v. State, 707 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1997)…al to honor defendant’s Miranda rights and use of defendant’s history of blackouts to undermine his reliance on his own memory). . Moreover, even if it could have been error to ■ admit this evidence, the error would be harmless. See Brown v. State, 443 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (serologist’s test which showed that defendant was included in large group of general population was either admissible and relevant or harmless error). . For purposes of clarity, we note at the outset that this point on appeal in…
-
Fenelon v. State, 594 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1992)…d 330 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1109, 106 S.Ct. 1958, 90 L.Ed.2d 366 (1986); Rodriguez v. State, 528 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Bradley v. State, 468 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), approved, 485 So. 2d 1285 (Fla.1986); Brown v. State, 443 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). And still other cases indicate that “flight” occurs where the defendant attempts escape from custody. See, e.g., Freeman v. State, 547 So. 2d 125 (Fla.1989); Harvey v. State, 529 So. 2d 1083, 1086 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.…
Authorities Cited
- In re Florida BAR, 108 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1959)
- Tejeda-Bermudez v. State, 427 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)