DIANE WATZKE LIPFORD, ALSO KNOWN AS DIANE BARBARA LIPFORD, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a manslaughter conviction, finding no error in the admission of photographs, testimony about prior events, or the jury charge on circumstantial evidence.
No, the trial court did not err. The photographs were properly admitted to aid an expert witness, the testimony about prior events was permissible, and the jury charge on circumstantial evidence contained no fundamental error.
“The photographs were introduced in aid of the explanation of the expert witness, and no error appears.”
Reasoning for admitting photographs of the deceased.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of manslaughter by a jury. The conviction was appealed based on alleged errors regarding the admission of photographs of t…
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.
Appellant was convicted of manslaughter following a jury verdict, and appeals said conviction urging that the court erred in the following particulars: First, in permitting into evidence certain photographs of the deceased. Second, in permitting testimony as to alleged events which took place prior in time to the date of the death of the deceased. Third, that the court erred in its charge on circumstantial evidence.
Following an examination of the record on appeal, the conviction and judgment is hereby affirmed. The photographs were introduced in aid of the explanation of the expert witness, and no error appears. See: Cullaro v. State, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 40; Boyd v. State, Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 632; Leach v. State, Fla.1961, 132 So. 2d 329. No error is demonstrated in the reference to similar acts which took place prior to the date of the death. See: Hutchinson v. State, Fla.App. 1958, 102 So. 2d 44. No specific objection was made to the complained of charge in the trial court, in accordance with § 918.10, Fla.Stat., F. S.A., and an examination of the charge in its entirety fails to disclose any fundamental error which would warrant a reversal on this ground, in accordance with Rule 6.16, subd. a, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A. To the contrary, an examination of the complete charges given by the trial court indicates that they contain no erroneous statements of the law applicable to the evidence. Therefore, the judgment and conviction is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robertson v. State, 245 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…contained some inappropriate language the defendants did not specifically object to the charge given to the jury. They cannot raise this point for the first time upon appeal. Irvin v. State, Fla. 1953, 66 So. 2d 288; Lipford v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So. 2d 16; § 918.10(4), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; and Rule 6.16(a), F.A.R. Robertson complains of reversible error in the denial of his requested jury instructions numbered eight, nine, thirteen and eighteen. “ * * * [A] judgment will not be reversed for failure t…
-
Maness v. State, 262 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…e of photographs, disclosing injuries of the child, was proper. The photographs were not gruesome, and clearly were relevant. See Kitchen v. State, Fla.1956, 89 So. 2d 667; Karl v. State, Fla.App.1964, 144 So. 2d 869; Lipford v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So. 2d 16; Roberts v. State, Fla.App.1967, 195 So. 2d 257; Dillen v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So. 2d 904. Moreover, all photographs which were offered were not admitted. The record shows there was extended discussion relating thereto, and that the court refus…
Authorities Cited
- Leach v. State, 132 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1961)
- Cullaro v. State, 97 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)
- Boyd v. State, 122 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Hutchinson v. State, 102 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)