JOHN HENRY GISSENDANNER, 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.
Appellant Gissendanner was convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon and aggravated battery. He appeals arguing the trial court erred by allowing the victim to testify about injuries sustained and by refusing to allow him to sit among courtroom spectators during victim identification. The court affirmed the conviction, finding any error harmless regarding the injury testimony and within the trial court's discretion regarding seating.
The court affirmed both rulings. As to the injury testimony, any error was harmless. As to the seating arrangement, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring Gissendanner to sit at the defense counsel's table, as trial courts have broad discretion to determine whether protective strategems such as modified seating are necessary.
[1] A trial court's decision to permit a victim to testify about injuries sustained during a robbery, even if erroneous, may be deemed harmless error.
[2] A defendant's request to sit among spectators during an in-court identification is a matter within the trial court's broad discretion.
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 intelligence“Although we find no Florida cases directly on point, we observe that there are a number of federal cases in which courts have held that the trial court has broad discretion to decide whether a protective strategem, such as that requested by appellant, is necessary.”
Establishes the trial court's broad discretion to determine courtroom procedures and protective measures without requiring specific Florida precedent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGissendanner was charged with robbery with a deadly weapon and aggravated battery. During trial, the victim testified about injuries he sustained duri…
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 Robbery With A Deadly Weapon cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellant, John Henry Gissendan-ner, appeals a judgment adjudicating him guilty of robbery with a deadly weapon and aggravated battery. He contends that the trial court committed reversible error by permitting the victim to testify about the injuries he allegedly sustained during the robbery, and by refusing to permit Gissen-danner to sit among the spectators in the courtroom when the victim was called upon to identify his assailant in court. We affirm the first issue, finding that the error, if any, was only harmless. See Edwards v. State, 530 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), approved, 548 So. 2d 656 (Fla.1989); Lee v. State, 444 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
As to the second issue, Gissendan-ner argues that because identification was an issue, and because he was the only black person in the courtroom, he was entitled to sit among the courtroom audience rather than at defense counsel’s table in order to test the victim’s ability to identify him. We do not agree. Although we find no Florida cases directly on point, we observe that there are a number of federal cases in which courts have held that the trial court has broad discretion to decide whether a protective strategem, such as that requested by appellant, is necessary. See, e.g., United States v. Sebetich, 776 F. 2d 412, 420-21 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1017, 108 S.Ct. 725, 98 L.Ed.2d 673 (1988); United States v. Brown, 699 F. 2d 585, 593-94 (2d Cir.1983); United States ex rel. Clark v. Fike, 538 F. 2d 750, 755-56 (7th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1064, 97 S.Ct. 791, 50 L.Ed.2d 781 (1977). We concur with this approach, and conclude that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in this case.
AFFIRM.
BOOTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T.B. v. State, 669 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…native basis of inflicting victim injury or disfigurement. See generally Clark; Edwards v. State, 530 So. 2d 936, 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), approved, 548 So. 2d 656 (Fla.1989); Webb v. State, 609 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Gissendanner v. State, 570 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). However, in this case, the evidence may be relevant for several purposes, including the following: to determine whether Appellant used a deadly weapon against the victim; to determine whether a battery even occurred; to counter…
-
Clark v. State, 632 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…So. 2d 656 (Fla.1989) (error for trial court to admit evidence from two police officers and the attending doctor, concerning the details and extent of the victim’s injuries); Webb v. State, 609 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Gissendanner v. State, 570 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). While the state concedes that only aggravated battery by intentionally causing great bodily harm requires evidence of the injuries inflicted, the state argues that the error in this case is harmless, relying on Lee v. State, 44…
Authorities Cited
- Derinda Edwards v. State, 548 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 1989)
- United States ex rel. Charles Clark v. Fike, 538 F.2d 750 (7th Cir. 1976)
- United States v. Sebetich, 776 F.2d 412 (3d Cir. 1985)
- Northern v. Tennessee, 429 U.S. 1064 (U.S. 1977)
- Scott v. Mathews, 429 U.S. 1064 (U.S. 1977)
- United States v. Brown, 699 F.2d 585 (2d Cir. 1983)
- Martin v. Hayes, 484 U.S. 1017 (U.S. 1988)
- Sebetich v. United States, 484 U.S. 1017 (U.S. 1988)
- Derinda Edwards v. State, 530 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- LEE v. State, 444 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)