ANTHONY DUVAL, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a conviction for buying, receiving, and concealing stolen goods, finding sufficient evidence and rejecting the claim that a prosecutor's remark improperly commented on the defendant's failure to testify.
1. Yes, the evidence was sufficient to identify the stolen property. 2. No, the remark did not improperly comment on the defendant's failure to testify.
“The first point urges that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because the allegedly stolen property was not sufficiently identified.”
States the appellant's first argument on appeal regarding the sufficiency of 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 by a jury of buying, receiving, and concealing stolen goods. He appealed the judgment and sentence, arguing that the stole…
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 Comment On Failure To Testify cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant appeals a judgment and sentence which were entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of buying, receiving and concealing stolen goods. See Fla.Stat., § 811.16, F.S.A. He has presented two points.
The first point urges that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because the allegedly stolen property was not sufficiently identified. A review of the record convinces us that appellant’s view of the evidence is not substantiated. See Guarino v. State, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 650.
Appellant’s second point urges error upon the theory that the prosecuting attorney made a remark which could have been interpreted as a comment upon defendant’s failure to testify. See Fla.Stat., § 918.09, F.S.A. The remark does not lend itself to the connotation given by the appellant under any reasonable view of the circumstances. Therefore, reversal is denied under the second point upon authority of Hand v. State, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 364, 367.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roundtree v. State, 229 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)…statements are read alone or in the context in which they were made, it does not seem to us that they amount to a comment on defendant’s failure to testify. These remarks do not lend themselves to the meaning suggested by appellant. Duval v. State, 190 So. 2d 613 (Fla.App.1966). The remaining question raised for our consideration centers upon the use of the victim’s mother as a witness to prove the element of outcry after the perpetration of the offense. It is contended in this [*284] case that the mother w…
-
Nelson v. State, 416 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…39 Fla. 645, 190 So. 756 (1939). However, a prosecutor’s remarks must always be examined with an eye to the context in which they appear. State v. Jones, 204 So. 2d 515 (Fla.1967); Jackson v. State, 328 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Duval v. State, 190 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). As the fifth circuit noted in United States v. Forrest, 620 F. 2d 446, 455-56 (5th Cir. 1980): [Statements that might appear improper when considered in a vacuum may be found permissible when examined in context. On direct exam…
-
Anthonio Perez v. State, 220 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…tent evidence to establish the ownership of the goods described in the information and the fact that they were recently stolen. See Guarino v. State, Fla.1953, 67 So. 2d 650; Hunt v. State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So. 2d 212; Duval v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 613. The corpus delicti was satisfactorily shown to allow the admission of the confession. The defendant further urges that the trial court erred in allowing evidence of the defendant having stolen property in his possession which was in addition to th…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hand v. State, 188 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Guarino v. State, 67 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1953)