HORACE TIMES, 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.
Affirmed conviction for grand theft where any error in admitting police testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the defendant's incriminating statements, possession of the credit card used in the theft, identification evidence, and lack of exonerating evidence.
Any error in admitting police testimony in violation of Postell v. State was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
[1] Error in admitting police testimony in violation of Postell v. …
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 intelligenceHorace Times was convicted of grand theft of a television set. He possessed a credit card used to effect the theft when arrested and made incriminatin…
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 Incriminating Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Horace Times from a judgment of conviction and sentence for grand theft of a television set. We affirm the final judgment of conviction and sentence under review upon a holding that any error in admitting the complained-of police testimony in violation of the rule stated in Postell v. State, 398 So. 2d 851 (Fla.3d DCA), rev. denied, 411 So. 2d 384 (Fla.1981) and its progeny, had no effect whatever on the verdict and was therefore harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given (a) the somewhat ambiguous nature of the offending testimony; (b) the defendant’s incriminating oral statements to the police implicating himself in the charged theft; (c) the defendant’s possession, when arrested, of the credit card which was used to effect the charged theft of the television set; (d) the identification of the defendant as one of the men who perpetrated the subject theft; and (e) the lack of any exonerating evidence adduced by the defendant at trial. We have not overlooked the defendant’s contrary arguments on appeal, but are not persuaded thereby. Pringle v. State, 553 So. 2d 1304 (Fla.3d DCA 1989); McGriff v. State, 497 So. 2d 1296 (Fla.3d DCA 1986), rev. denied, 506 So. 2d 1042 (Fla.1987); Hill v. State, 459 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harry v. State, 592 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986); Times v. State, 563 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Busch v. State, 466 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Hill v. State, 459 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).…
Authorities Cited
- Postell v. State, 398 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Marshell Joseph Hill v. State, 459 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Deen v. Zaremba Fla. Co., 497 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- McGRIFF v. State, 497 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Pringle v. State, 553 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)