JUAN DEL PINO
v.
STATE
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.
Juan Del Pino was convicted of murder in the second degree after being indicted for murder in the first degree. Del Pino challenged the trial court's decision to try him on a different indictment and to deny his motion for a new trial, but the Florida Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed the conviction.
The trial court did not commit reversible error in requiring Del Pino to be tried on the second indictment instead of the original one, and the conviction and judgment should be affirmed as the evidence was ample to sustain the verdict and no reversible error occurred in denying the motion for new trial.
“There was no reversible error committed by the court in this regard.”
Court's determination that trying defendant on the second indictment rather than remanding to the original indictment was not reversible error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDel Pino was indicted for murder in the first degree in Monroe County Circuit Court. After a conviction that was deemed defective and a new trial was …
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 Second-Degree Murder Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of error brings for review judgment of conviction of murder in the second degree.
The record shows that two indictments were returned against the defendant in the Circuit Court of Monroe County. One of the indictments charged Juan Del Pino with the offense of murder in the first degree. The other indictment, which we will call Indictment No. 2, charged the same defendant with murder in the first degree and also charged one Bonafacio Riviero as principal in the second degree with the offense of murder in the first degree. The defendant Pino was put on trial under indictment No. 1; *284and was convicted, but the verdict in that case was relective and, therefore, new trial was granted. When the new trial was granted the two defendants were put on trial together under indictment No. 2.
The defendant Pino by counsel objected to arraignment of Pino on indictment No. 2. The objection was overruled.
Then Pino filed motion as follows:
“Wherefore this defendant moves the Court to abate the trial in the instant case and to try him, this defendant, upon the indictment in the case by the State of Florida v. Juan Del Pino, in which a new trial has been granted by the order of this court as aforesaid.”
Motion was denied and defendant was put on trial and convicted of murder in the second degree.
There was no reversible error committed toy the court in this regard. Gibson v. State, 26 Fla. 109, 7 So. 376; Brien v. State, 55 Fla. 146, 47 Sou. 11; State, ex rel. Owens, v. Barnes, 24 Fla. 153, 4 Sou. 560.
It was next contended that the court erred in overruling defendant’s motion for new trial. There were 18 grounds contained in the motion. We have considered each of them in connection with the record as presented and it is not made to appear that any reversible error occurred. The evidence was amply sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment. There was no material differences between the salient facts, so far as the actual commission of the homicide is concerned, in this case and in the case of Alvarez v. State, 41 Fla. 532, 27 Sou. 40. The facts are as near identical as we could expect to find the facts in any two cases and it could serve no useful purpose to repeat here what was said by the Court in that case.
*285No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Brown and Davis, J. J., •concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State ex rel. A. W. Owens v. Barnes, 24 Fla. 153 (Fla. 1888)
- O'Brien v. State, 55 Fla. 146 (Fla. 1908)
- Alvarez v. State, 41 Fla. 532 (Fla. 1899)
- Rupert R. Gibson v. State, 26 Fla. 109 (Fla. 1890)