HARLIS SMITH, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
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 denying the motion for judgment of acquittal despite a one-day discrepancy in the date of the offense, nor did it err in denying an objection to hearsay evidence.
The defendant was charged with robbery on or about September 8, 1989, but the evidence showed the robbery occurred on September 9, 1989. The defendant…
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 Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Harlis Smith appeals from a judgment and sentence for robbery with a firearm and battery. We affirm.
We hold that the trial court did not err when it denied appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. The state alleged in its information that the robbery occurred on or about September 8, 1989. The evidence at trial showed that the robbery occurred on September 9, 1989 at about 2:50 A.M. Appellant did not request a bill of particulars nor did he object to the evidence corresponding to the September 9 date. In Hutchinson v. State, 453 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), this court held that the state could not remedy an erroneous date specified in a bill of particulars, if there is an objection, by amending it to conform to the evidence. Here, the one-day discrepancy in the information did not materially alter the offenses charged and the discrepancy did not compromise appellant’s defense.
We also hold that the trial court did not reversibly err when it denied appellant’s objection to hearsay evidence presented during cross-examination of a police officer. During the state’s case, the victim gave the same hearsay testimony without objection from appellant. We have carefully reviewed the record and find overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt. The admission of the hearsay testimony, at most, constituted harmless error. See State v. DeGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
AFFIRMED.
LETTS, DELL and STONE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elvin Earnest Sanchez v. State, 956 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…t. The probable cause affidavit revealed that the incident actually took place on March 13, 2005. We find that the trial court properly denied appellant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal based on the discrepancy. in the dates. See Smith v. State, 573 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal based on a discrepancy between the offense date alleged in the information and the date proven at trial, where the discrepancy did not materia…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Hutchinson v. State, 453 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)