ERNEST E. WILLOUGHBY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; DAVID BRADLEY, JR., APPELLANT, V. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; WILLIE HOWARD, APPELLANT, V. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; JOHN ST. ROBERTS, APPELLANT, V. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; JOHN JOHNSON, 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 court held that a defendant's right to present closing argument at a non-jury trial must be raised in the trial court, not for the first time on appeal.
Defendants were convicted of felonies in non-jury trials without the record affirmatively showing they were offered the opportunity to present closing…
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 Right To Closing Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
These five appeals present a single question. In each instance the defendant-appellant was convicted of a felony in the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County, Florida. The issue presented in each appeal is whether the judgment is erroneous and must be reversed for a new trial because the record does not affirmatively show that the defendant was accorded and waived the opportunity to present argument at the close of the non-jury trial.
The appellants rely upon Floyd v. State, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 105. See also Ruffin v. State, Fla.App.1967, 195 So.2d 26. It is urged that the language of the Supreme Court in the Floyd opinion requires the record to affirmatively show that the defendant was tendered the opportunity to present closing argument.
In each of the cases before us, the record does show that after resting his case, the defendant was adjudged guilty. In no instance was the question now presented to this appellate court presented to the trial court by a request for closing argument, an objection to the alleged denial of such, a motion for a mistrial or a motion for a new trial. We think that under these circumstances, the question may not be presented for the first time upon appeal.
See Dukes v. State, 148 Fla. 109, 3 So.2d 754 (1941); § 924.11, Fla.Stat. (1965), F.S.A. Rule 6.7(g), Florida Appellate *11Rules, 32 F.S.A. Cf., Hall v. State, 119 Fla. 38, 160 So. 511.
The judgment and sentence is affirmed in each of the above appeals.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Farrington v. State, 207 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…plicable to the situation now before us. Counsel for appellant may not stand idly by and fail to even comment upon a procedure which he now argues is prejudicial. See Hall v. State, 119 Fla. 38, 160 So. 511 (1935); Willoughby v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 10. We therefore hold that appellant has not shown reversible error upon his first point. Appellant’s second point, which goes to the validity of the search, is without merit because the record shows that the officers were lawfully on the premises at…
-
Cress Joseph Walker v. State, 222 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…to properly proceed and to a final closing argument. This argument is without merit inasmuch as there was no timely or proper objection lodged in the trial court. Hall v. State, 119 Fla. 38, 160 So. 511 (1935); and Willoughby v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 10. The defendant also argues that he was denied his right to effective, competent counsel in the trial court. The State responds to this argument by pointing out that the defendant failed to raise this point by any assignment of error. The assignment…
-
Staples v. State, 298 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…e to permit a defendant to have the concluding argument when he does not testify constitutes reversible error, but only when the point is preserved on appeal. Hall v. State, 1935, 119 Fla. 38, 160 So. 511; see Willoughby v. State, Fla.App.3rd, 1967, 203 So. 2d 10. [*546] Even perceiving appellant’s contention to be the deprivation of effective assistance of counsel rather than the right to close, he does not make a claim of constitutional magnitude which may be reached under Rule 3.850, Cr.P.R.1 Counsel’s fa…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hall v. State, 119 Fla. 38 (Fla. 1935)
- Floyd v. State, 90 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1956)
- Dukes v. State, 148 Fla. 109 (Fla. 1941)
- Baskin v. Klemm, 118 Fla. 662 (Fla. 1935)
- Ruffin v. State, 195 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)