CHARLES HALL, 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.
Charles Hall was convicted of second-degree murder for shooting Waldo Cokerwolge, Jr. on appeal, Hall challenged the verdict as contrary to law and evidence, and objected to prosecutor misconduct in closing argument. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding Hall's assignments of error were either legally improper or unsupported by the record.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that jury verdicts are not assignable as error and that Hall failed to establish either that the state did not prove the identity of the victim or that prosecutorial misconduct occurred.
“The verdict of a jury is not a judicial act and is not assignable as error.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that jury verdicts cannot be challenged on appeal as improper judicial acts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Hall shot a man on March 26, 1966. The victim, identified variously as Waldo, Coker Junior, or Waldo Cokerwolge, Jr., died on May 11, 1966 fro…
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 Variance Between Information And Proof cases and more on FLexlaw
After verdict, Charles Hall was adjudged guilty of murder in the second degree, and upon motion for a new trial being denied, he entered this appeal through the Public Defender. We affirm.
The appellant’s first four assignments of error are that (1) the verdict is contrary to the law; (2) the verdict is contrary to the evidence; (3) the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence; and (4) the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence. The verdict of a jury is not a judicial act and is not assignable as error. Florida Appellate Rule 3.5(c), 32 F.S.A. To be of any force and effect assignments of error must be addressed to identified judicial acts.
Appellant’s first point argued is that there is a “material variance between the name of the victim as alleged in the information and that of the person proved to have been attacked by the defendant.” This point comes within the scope of the assignment that the “State failed to prove that the individual shot was the deceased.”
The information charges that the defendant shot and killed Waldo Cokerwolge, Jr., a/k/a Waldo Cokerwolde, Jr., on March 26, 1966. At trial, it was stipulated that “Waldo Cokerwolge, Jr. died on May 11th, 1966 of a gunshot wound.” The defendant testified that he and Mary and Dot and Coker went to the house of “Coker” and “Dot” on the morning of the shooting where “Coker Junior grabbed me” and on cross examination the defendant admitted he shot “Waldo”. The several witnesses identified the man shot on March 26th as “Coker Junior Waldo”, “Waldo”, or “Coker Junior”. The defendant used the name “Waldo” in reference to the man shot when he said, “Waldo, don’t crowd me”. ' There is nothing in the record to suggest that the defendant did not shoot Waldo Cokerwolge, Jr., and all the evidence shows that it was he that the defendant shot with a pistol and it is stipulated that he died of a gunshot wound. The point is without merit.
The defendant’s second point argued is: “Were the comments of the pros*204ecutor in the closing argument prejudicial to appellant?” which is within the scope an assignment of error that “the Prosecutor used improper remarks in his closing argument to the jury”. Appellant’s brief fails to show that any objection was made at trial to such remarks or that any judicial ruling relative thereto was made at trial. We have examined the record in this respect and find the point without merit.
Affirmed.
CROSS and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Thomas v. State, 326 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1975)…the statement of the exception upon which respondent relies and henceforth will review challenged argument of prosecutors only when an objection is timely made.” (emphasis supplied) Cf. Smith v. State, 243 So. 2d 602 (Fla.App.1971); Hall v. State, 203 So. 2d 202 (Fla.App.1967). As to those remarks to which appellant failed to object, this Court will not consider appellant’s objections. The two remarks which were objected to by defense counsel, to-wit: “The entire department suffers from this man’s actions…
-
Kruglak v. State, 300 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…Except for fundamental error, in absence of a timely objection interposed at trial, defendant may not raise objections to remarks of the prosecutor for the first time on appeal. State v. Jones, Fla. 1967, 204 So. 2d 515; Hall v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 202; Smith v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 243 So. 2d 602. Appellant secondly argues that the trial court erred in allowing witnesses to testify for the state, whose identities were not supplied to the appellant, even though he timely had demanded their ident…
-
Chance v. State, 251 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…PER CURIAM. The briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. See Hall v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 202, and Morris v. State, 1930, 100 Fla. 850, 130 So. 582. Affirmed. WALDEN, OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence