FRANK MICHAEL RACO, 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.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and the trial judge did not err in admitting exhibits or curtailing cross-examination.
The defendant was convicted of breaking and entering and grand larceny. The defendant appealed, arguing insufficient evidence, improper admission of e…
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 Waiver Of Error By Failure To Object cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant appeals from the judgment of guilty and the sentence for 1) breaking and entering, and 2) grand larceny. It is urged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and that the trial judge erred when certain exhibits were admitted because their materiality was not proved. In addition it is urged that the trial judge improperly curtailed the defendant’s right of cross-examination of one of the state’s witnesses.
A review of the record in the light of the briefs and oral argument reveals that the evidence was sufficient to establish each element of the crimes charged and that the exhibits admitted were shown to be material to the issue. Appellant’s point directed to the court’s ruling upon one question during cross-examination of one of the witnesses for the state is not grounds for reversal because defendant accepted the court’s ruling without objection. See § 924.11(3), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
Defendant now declares that the purpose of the question (which was outside the scope of the direct examination) was to show an alleged bias of the witness against *486the defendant. At the time of the ruling no proffer was made nor was any effort made to show the relevancy of the evidence sought by the question.
Affirmed.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reuben R. Alford v. State, 280 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…e an appellant from claiming reversible error because of the trial court’s ruling on questions where the appellant had accepted the trial court’s ruling without objection, unless he had no opportunity to object. See also Raco v. State, Fla.App.1959, 114 So. 2d 485. We also noted a long line of cases wherein it has been held that a request for an instruction or an objection to a failure to give an instruction is a requirement to raising error on appeal. See Flagler v. State, Fla.1967, 198 So. 2d 313; McPhee v.…
-
Raco v. State, 120 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1960)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 114 So. 2d 485.…
-
McCLUSTER v. State, 238 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. The procedure followed by the police did not violate the principles set forth in Biggers v. Tennessee, 390 U.S. 404, 88 S.Ct. 979, 19 L.Ed.2d 1267 (1968). See also Raco v. State, Fla.App.1959, 114 So. 2d 485; Urga v. State, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 43, 44.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence