LOUIS C. PESSOLANO, 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 appellate court affirmed a defendant's conviction and sentence for abortion, finding no merit in the five points raised on appeal. The court determined the evidence was sufficient, the denial of a severance motion was not an abuse of discretion, prosecutorial remarks were not grounds for retrial, the jury charge was not erroneous, and a juror overhearing a remark did not prejudice the defendant.
The court held that the defendant's conviction and sentence for abortion should be affirmed. The court found no reversible error in the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of the severance motion, the prosecutor's remarks, the jury charge, or the juror overhearing a remark.
“Appellant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction is not borne out by the record, which reveals sufficient evidentiary support to establish the essential facts to the degree of proof required.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted and sentenced for abortion. He appealed, raising five points of contention, including insufficient evidence, denial of a m…
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 Principal In The Second Degree cases and more on FLexlaw
By this appeal the defendant below seeks reversal of his conviction and sentence for abortion. Five points are presented. We have considered the several contentions of the appellant in the light of the record and briefs and find them to be without merit. Appellant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction is not borne out by the record, which reveals sufficient evidentiary support to establish the essential facts to the degree of proof required. Denial of the motion for severance was not shown to constitute reversible error. The ruling was one within the discretion of the trial court, and no abuse of discretion was disclosed. Samuels v. State, 123 Fla. 280, 166 So. 743; Manson v. State, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 272; Jackman v. State, Fla.App.1962, 140 So.2d 627. Certain remarks of the prosecutor, as pointed out by the appellant, were not such as to require a retrial. A detailed discussion of them would seem unnecessary. See Goddard v. State, 142 Fla. 28, 196 So. 596. Moreover, they were not objected to when made. See Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625. The jury charge complained of by the appellant was not erroneous. The paramour who arranged and abetted was tried with the doctor as a principal. His conviction was not appealed. The instruction was to the effect that the paramour could not be found guilty if the doctor was found not guilty. The statement of law was not incorrect (Kelley v. State, 79 Fla. 182, 83 So. 909), and it was not shown how the charge could prejudice the doctor. The court properly denied the ground of the motion for new trial which had reference to a *708juror overhearing an uncomplimentary remark made during the trial by the co-defendant to his mother. If such remark, when learned of by the jurors, may have served to influence them against the co-defendant, it is not shown how it would operate to influence the jurors against the doctor.
The case appears to have been fairly and fully tried, with no reversible error shown, and accordingly the judgment appealed from should be and hereby is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Barquet, 262 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1972)…o. 2d 685 (1945) ; Graham v. State, 153 Fla. 807, 16 So. 2d 59 (1944) ; Sinnefia v. State, 100 So. 2d 837 (Fla.App.3rd 1958) ; Nations v. State, 145 So. 2d 259 (Fla.App.2d 1962) ; Urga v. State, 155 So. 2d 719 (Fla.App.2d 1963) ; Pessolano v. State, 166 So. 2d 706 (Fla.App.3rd 1964). . 1 Am.Jur.2d Abortion, § 9 (1962), 153 A.L.R. 1218, 1266 (1944). . Clark & Marshall, Crimes, p. 775 (7th Ed. 1967) : “It is not a common-law offense to procure an abortion if it is necessary, or reasonably believed to be neces…
-
Reddick v. State, 190 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…e, 1948, 160 Fla. 43, 33 So. 2d 226; Manson v. State, Fla.1956, 88 So. 2d 272; Rankin v. State, Fla.1962, 143 So. 2d 193; Roberts v. State, Fla. 1964, 164 So. 2d 817; Jackman v. State, Fla.App. 1962, 140 So. 2d 627; Pessolano v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 706. In a prose■cution of two defendants charged jointly with the same offense, a denial of a motion for separate trial of one of the defendants ■following a confession by the other defendant was erroneous when both defendants were together throughout t…
-
Pessalono v. State, 168 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1964)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 166 So. 2d 706.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582 (Fla. 1947)
- Goddard v. State, 143 Fla. 28 (Fla. 1940)
- Jackman v. State, 140 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Emmett Manson v. State, 88 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 1956)
- Samuels v. State, 123 Fla. 280 (Fla. 1936)
- Hewall Inv. Co. v. Scott, 158 Fla. 795 (Fla. 1947)
- Kelley v. State, 79 Fla. 182 (Fla. 1920)