JACK ERVIN RICHARDSON, 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 prosecutor's question about the defendant's observation of the victim writing with his left hand in open court was permissible and not an evidentiary error.
During a trial for armed robbery, the victim drew a diagram of the scene. The defendant later testified, and the prosecutor asked if the defendant saw…
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 Evidentiary Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jack Richardson appeals his conviction for armed robbery, contending that an evidentiary error requires reversal. We disagree and affirm.
At trial, the victim was asked to draw a diagram of the robbery area on a blackboard, which he did in the presence of the jury. Eventually the question whether the witness was left-handed or right-handed became an issue in the case. When defendant Richardson took the stand, the prosecutor asked, “Did you see that he [the victim] was writing with his left hand?” The defendant’s objection was overruled and the defendant answered in the affirmative-
Defendant contends his objection should have been sustained under Courson v. State, 414 So. 2d 207, 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). In Courson the prosecutor attempted to establish the fact of a nontestifying defendant’s left-handedness by stating (while another witness was testifying) “ ‘may the record reflect the defendant was writing with his left hand in court’.... ” Id. The concern underlying Courson is “that it is inappropriate for a prosecutor to attempt to transform his own, often unshared, courtroom observation into an evidentiary fact.” Id. (citation omitted).
Courson does not prevent the prosecutor’s asking a witness a question about something which has occurred in open court. So long as there is a good faith basis for the question, the fact that the question is asked does not mean that the prosecutor is announcing evidentiary facts as was done in Courson. In the present case it was permissible for the prosecutor to ask this (testifying) defendant what he observed in open court; after the objection was overruled, the defendant acknowledged that the prosecutor was correct.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. Schou, 616 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1993)…GRIMES, Justice. We review Schou v. Miller, 583 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA1991), because of its conflict with Walton v. Walton, 537 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 545 So. 2d 1370 (Fla.1989). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. June Miller and Michael S…
-
Cotton v. State, 588 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…o. 2d 792 (Fla. [*696] 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 576 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1991). Conviction affirmed; sentence reversed and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. . The defendant’s conviction is affirmed based on the authority of Richardson v. State, 583 So. 2d 805 (Fla.3d DCA 1991). . Section 775.084(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), reads in pertinent part as follows: The court, in conformity with the procedure established in subsection (3), may sentence the habitual violent felony offender as follows: 1. I…
Authorities Cited
- Courson v. State, 414 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)