PETER MARTIN, A/K/A PETE MARTINO, A/K/A PETER ANGELO BARTEMIO, 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.
Peter Martin appealed his robbery conviction, challenging the trial judge's denial of a continuance motion based on allegedly prejudicial newspaper publicity and raising claims about prosecutor misconduct and sufficiency of evidence. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the single newspaper article, standing alone, does not justify a new trial under the standards set forth in Estes v. State of Texas and Sheppard v. Maxwell. The court found no reversible error in the prosecutor's conduct and found ample evidence in the record to sustain the conviction.
“The news article itself, standing alone, does not justify a new trial under the decisions cited by appellant”
Establishes the court's holding that a single newspaper article is insufficient to warrant a new trial, distinguishing this case from Estes and Sheppard.
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 charged with robbery. At trial commencement, a newspaper article was published that the defendant believed to be inflammatory and pr…
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 Prejudicial Publicity cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a conviction of robbery.
At the commencement of the trial the trial judge denied a motion for continuance, the basis of which was a newspaper article which appellant believes inflammatory and prejudicial to his rights. Except for a copy of the news article, which appeared on page 7 of a local newspaper, this court has no record from which to draw any conclusion of fact or law. The news article itself, standing alone, does not justify a new trial under the decisions cited by appellant (Estes v. State of Texas, 1965, 381 U.S. 532, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 14 L.Ed.2d 543; Shepphard v. Maxwell, 1966, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600) in which the defendant, in each case, was subjected to nation-wide publicity prior to and during his trial and also harassment in and about the courtroom by television crews, radio broadcasters, reporters, columnists, photographers and the like.
We have no way of knowing what arguments were presented to the trial judge in support of the motion for continuance. We have no way of knowing what took place during voir dire examination of the jurors — whether any of them had read the article; whether any had formed opinions because of it; whether any difficulty was encountered in selecting impartial jurors; whether appellant used all his peremptory challenges; whether any juror, or jurors, should have been excused for cause because of the news article. The rulings of the trial judge came to this court with a presumption of correctness, and nothing appears in this record to overcome this presumption.
We have carefully examined the record concerning alleged improper conduct of the prosecutor in the examination of witnesses and in his summation and find no reversible error.
The other question brought here for review concerns the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict of guilty. The *10evidence against appellant, that is, the evidence connecting him with the robbery, is circumstantial.
A detailed recitation of the factual situation leading to appellant’s arrest and subsequent conviction would serve no worthwhile purpose. The record contains ample evidence to sustain the conviction. The trial judge properly charged the jury on the subject of circumstantial evidence, and it was within the province of the jury to reject the testimony of appellant and his witnesses by whom he sought to establish an alibi.
Affirmed.
WALDEN, C. J., and ANDREWS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Evans v. State, 218 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…this court with a presumption of correctness and all inferences to [*516] be drawn from the evidence are to be m favor of guilt. Birge v. State, Fla.1957, 92 So. 2d 819; Hoover v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 212 So. 2d 95; Martin v. State, Fla. App.1967, 195 So. 2d 9. We have carefully examined the entire record on appeal and considered the briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that there is ample competent evidence to support the conviction and that no reversible error appears. Accordingly the jud…
-
Martin v. State, 201 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1967)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 195 So. 2d 9.…
-
Martin v. Louie L. Wainwright, 428 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. 1970)…e, 67 So. 2d 327 (Fla.1953); Thomas v. State, 59 So. 2d 517 (Fla.1952). . If these contentions involve such glaring errors of state law, it is not shown why they were not presented on Martin’s direct appeal in the state courts. See Martin v. State, 195 So. 2d 9 (Fla.App. 1967), cert. denied Martin v. State, 201 So. 2d 551 (Fla.1967). . Herbert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 316, 47 S.Ct. 103, 104, 71 L.Ed. 270 (1926). See Flagler v. Wainwright, 423 F. 2d 1359 (5th Cir. 1970).…
Authorities Cited
- Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1966)
- Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1965)