MILTON HOLMES, 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 conviction for leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. The court found no error in the admission of photographs of the defendant's car or in the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the penalty, as such instructions are not mandatory.
No, the photographs were properly admitted as they were identified and relevant. No, the trial court is not required to instruct the jury on the penalty for the crime.
“The reasonable inference from the evidence was that they were of the defendant's automobile, and the appellant has cited us no authority that their introduction constituted error.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for upholding the admission of photographs.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was found guilty by a jury of leaving the scene of an accident that caused a child's death. He appealed, arguing that photographs of his…
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 Mandatory Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
By this appeal, the defendant seeks review of a jury verdict and judgment thereon finding him guilty of leaving the scene of an accident which resulted in the death of a small child. Upon appeal, the appellant urges error in the introduction of certain photographs of his automobile, contending that same were introduced solely for the purpose of prejudicing or inflaming the minds of the jurors; and, secondly, that the- court erred in not instructing the jury-as to the penalty for the crime informed against, citing § 918.10(1), Fla. Stat.,. F.S.A. We find no error and affirm.-
The photographs were properly identified. The reasonable inference from the evidence was that they were of the defendant’s automobile, and the appellant has cited us no authority that their introduction constituted error. The Supreme Court of Florida has specifically held that notwithstanding the language of § 918.10 (1), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., it is not mandatory on the trial court to give instructions as to the penalty. See: Cason v. State, 159 Fla. 294, 31 So.2d 274; Simmons v. State, 160 Fla. 626, 36 So.2d 207. Particularly is this so when no such instruction was requested by the defendant. See: White v. State, *587Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 340; Peel v. State, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 910.
Therefore, the conviction, judgment and sentence here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 308 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1974)…d to ignore the statute in so far as it attempts to require the inclusion in the charge of the penalty for the offense for which the defendant was on trial.” This interpretation was buttressed by the later decisions in Holmes v. State, Fla. App.3d, 181 So. 2d 586 (1965), McBride v. State, Fla.App. 1st, 197 So. 2d 850 (1967). While it is true that Simmons, as contended by petitioner, also concerned itself [*40] with the propriety of the legislature s attempt to infringe on a trial court’s inherent power to p…
-
Williams v. State, 378 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…626, 36 So. 2d 207 (1948), is [*904] sufficient authority to engage in the act of changing the meaning of a word or interpreting the meaning of the court’s rule. Simmons, like McBride v. State, 197 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967) and Holmes v. State, 181 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1965) are interpretations of statutory wording and these cases are based on the reasoning that the legislature may attempt to direct the procedure in the courts but it cannot mandate court procedure. Because our Supreme Court establish…
-
Johnson v. State, 297 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…is case. In Simmons v. State, 1948, 160 Fla. 626, 36 So. 2d 207, the Supreme Court interpreted this statute as permitting the trial court the discretion of whether to give the charge. This decision was followed in Holmes v. State, Fla.App.3d, 1965, 181 So. 2d 586, and McBride v. State, Fla.App.lst, 1967, 197 So. 2d 850. In spite of the language of Simmons suggesting that the jury’s function is limited to that of determining guilt, appellant argues that the real basis for the decision in Simmons was that the…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Simmons v. State, 160 Fla. 626 (Fla. 1948)
- Peel v. State, 154 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Cason v. State, 159 Fla. 294 (Fla. 1947)
- Ahrens v. Shell OIL Co., 122 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Geller v. Smik, 159 Fla. 223 (Fla. 1947)