RICARDO OLIVERA, 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 admission of an autopsy photograph was within the trial judge's discretion and that the evidence was sufficient for the jury on the second-degree murder charge.
Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder. He appealed the admission of an autopsy photograph and the jury in…
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 Admission Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant Ricardo Olivera appeals his conviction for second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder. We affirm.
First, we conclude that the admission of the disputed autopsy photograph into evidence was within the discretion of the trial judge and that the photograph was not unfairly prejudicial. See Kirby v. State, 625 So. 2d 51, 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The photograph at issue was not of the same graphic nature as those erroneously admitted in Hoffert v. State, 559 So. 2d 1246, 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We also conclude that the evidence on the charge of second-degree murder was sufficient to be presented to the jury-
Defendant’s final claim is that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on attempted second-degree murder because the standard jury instructions do not require the state to prove that the defendant intended to kill. We reject that claim on the authority of Gentry v. State, 437 So. 2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1983); Pitts v. State, 710 So. 2d 62, 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); and Galdamez v. State, 713 So. 2d 1128, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1749 (Fla. 3d DCA July 29, 1998).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Proctor v. State, 901 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…(f)(6). Several district courts of appeal have strictly construed this time limitation. See Hill v. State, 890 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (refusing to permit counsel to withdraw brief in favor of filing a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion); Lee v. State, 719 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). However, strictly construing this rule regarding its time limitations in Anders cases presents a procedural quagmire. In Anders cases, counsel’s brief merely states that counsel is unable to find meritorious arguments after a co…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 437 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1983)
- Pitts v. State, 710 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Kirby v. State, 625 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Hoffert v. State, 559 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Galdamez v. State, 713 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)