HERMAN CORTEZ ROACH, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; KENNETH HERMAN DEAN, APPELLANT, V. THE 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.
This case involves two appellants convicted of robbery. They appealed their convictions, arguing that a confession was improperly admitted, a requested alibi charge was refused, and evidence of prior crimes was erroneously admitted. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no merit in the appellants' contentions.
No, the trial court did not err. The confession's admissibility was supported by conflicting testimony resolved in favor of admissibility, the alibi charge was inappropriate as the defendants' whereabouts were not disputed, and the evidence of prior crimes was relevant and admissible.
“The validity and the admissibility of the confession depended upon testimony which was conflicting, which was resolved in favor of admissibility.”
Explains the reasoning for upholding the admission of the confession.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants, along with a third individual, were charged with, tried for, and convicted of robbery. They appealed their convictions, raising three …
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 Evidence Of Prior Crimes cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants and another were informed against, tried and convicted of the crime of robbery. Appellants contend (1) a confession was improperly admitted; (2) that it was error to refuse to give a requested charge on alibi; and (3) that the court was in error in admitting certain evidence of prior crimes. We have considered these contentions in the light of the record and briefs and find them to be without merit. The validity and the admissibility of the confession depended upon testimony which was conflicting, which was resolved in favor of admissibility. The court properly determined that the requested charge as to alibi was inappropriate, there being no issue as to the location or whereabouts of the defendants at the time in question. The evidence of prior crimes was relevant and admissible under the holding of the Supreme Court in Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 654.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green v. State, 380 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Roach v. State, 181 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); State ex rel. Mitchell v. Walker, 294 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Simpkin v. State, 363 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978).…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)