THEODORE S. TAMER, 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 evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that no reversible error occurred during the trial.
[1] A conviction for arson, based on aiding and abetting, requires proof that the defendant intended for arson to be committed or took action to assist in its commission.
[2] A motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted if the evidence is insufficient to prove the elements of the charged offense.
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 intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of two counts of arson on a theory of aiding and abetting. He argued insufficient evidence and improper closing arguments …
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 Improper Closing Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Theodore Tamer seeks the reversal of his conviction of two counts of arson, on a theory of aiding and abetting.1 He contends there was insufficient evidence to prove he either intended that arson be committed or took any action to assist another in the actual commission of the charged arson offenses.
Consequently, he argues, the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal as to the arson offenses. Appellant further contends that improper closing argument by the state deprived him of his right to a fair trial, and the trial court’s allowing the state to introduce “collateral crime” evidence without the establishment of a proper predicate therefor constituted reversible error. Having carefully considered each of the points raised on appeal, we conclude that no reversible error has been demonstrated.
The record discloses that the case was fully and fairly tried, the verdict is supported by the evidence, and the several rulings of the trial court challenged by appellant did not, on the record and under the law, constitute harmful error. See Heiney v. State, 447 So. 2d 210, 212 (Fla.), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 920, 105 S.Ct. 303, 83 L.Ed.2d 237 (1984); Smith v. State, 424 So. 2d 726, 731 (Fla. 1982), cert denied, 462 U.S. 1145,103 S.Ct. 3129, 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983); Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331, 335 (Fla.1978); Weeks v. State, 492 So. 2d 719, 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Blair v. State, 481 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); T.G.B. v. State, 405 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Therefore the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. This court previously reversed an order granting Tamer's motion to suppress certain physical evidence relative to the instant prosecution. State v. Tamer, 449 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 455 So. 2d 1033 (Fla.1984). We subsequently affirmed an order of suppression entered by the trial court upon remand. State v. Tamer, 475 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), cert, denied, 488 So. 2d 69 (Fla.1986).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1978)
- Heiney v. State, 447 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1984)
- THE Florida BAR v. Merwin, 424 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1982)
- Garrison v. Hudson, 469 U.S. 920 (U.S. 1984)
- Perry v. Lockhart, 469 U.S. 920 (U.S. 1984)
- Smith v. Florida, 462 U.S. 1145 (U.S. 1983)
- Weeks v. State, 492 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- State v. Tamer, 449 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Graham Blair v. State, 481 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- T.G.B., Jr. v. State, 405 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)