WILSON PIERRE, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Eyewitness Identification cases and more on FLexlaw
We find no abuse of discretion in the trial judge’s lengthy written order revisiting an interlocutory ruling of a predecessor judge on a motion in limine determining the admissibility of an expert on eyewitness identification. See McMullen v. State, 714 So.2d 368 (Fla.1998). Although the judge should have provided notice to both sides that he was reconsidering the ruling, appellant did not object to the procedure utilized after the judge made the ruling. There was no fundamental error; the judge listened to an audiotape of the earlier hearing and considered the arguments made at that hearing. Although there was conflicting evidence regarding this shooting in a crowded shopping mall on Christmas Eve, competent, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that appellant was the shooter. We have fully considered appellant’s other arguments and find no errors, fundamental or otherwise.
Affirmed.
POLEN, GROSS and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pierre v. State, 141 So. 3d 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Report No. 2007-10, 997 So. 2d 403 (Fla.2008). The jury found Pierre guilty of second-degree murder as a lesser included offense and the judgment and sentence were affirmed on appeal. See Pierre v. State, 90 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Pierre argues that this instruction violated Montgomery, which held that an instruction for manslaughter by act requiring proof of intent to kill was fundamentally erroneous. 39 So. 3d at 259. He faults counsel for failing to r…
Authorities Cited
- McMULLEN v. State, 714 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1998)