MARTIN KLEINBARD, 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 possession and fraudulent acquisition of barbiturates, holding that the evidence sufficiently proved the defendant knowingly provided a false address and that the defendant waived any right to a closing argument by not requesting it.
Yes, the state established a prima facie case by showing the appellant knowingly provided a false address. No, the appellant was not denied his right to a closing argument because he did not request one.
“the evidence showed the giving of a false address where appellant did not live and never had lived and this, along with other testimony, established that the appellant knowingly gave a false address.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for finding sufficient evidence of the false address element of the crime.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of possessing barbiturates and obtaining them by using a false address. The state presented evidence that the appellant 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.
The appellant was convicted of (1) possession of barbiturates and (2) using a false address to obtain barbiturates contrary to the provisions of § 404.02, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. The appellant presents two points. The first urges that the State failed to establish a primia facie case because it did not prove affirmatively that appellant obtained the drugs with criminal intent. Without deciding-the question of whether this particular statute requires scienter as a necessary element of the crime [see Coleman v. State ex rel. Jackson, 140 Fla. 772, 193 So. 84 (1940)], we hold that the evidence showed the giving of a false address where appellant did not live and never had lived and this, along with other testimony, established that the appellant knowingly gave a false address.
Appellant’s second point urges that he was denied the right of closing argument. This position has been repeatedly dealt with by the courts of this State who have held that unless the appellant requests closing argument, or objects to its omission, no error is shown. Willoughby v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 10, cf. State v. Jones, Fla.1967, 204 So.2d 515.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Sutterby, 34 Fla. Supp. 22 (Brevard Cty. Ct. 1969)…t a just appreciation of the state’s burden of proving scienter in a joint possession of contraband case from a reading of Cohen v. State, Fla. 1961, 125 So. 2d 560; Frank v. State, Fla. App. 1967, 199 So. 2d 117; Kleinbard v. State, Fla. App. 1968, 208 So. 2d 127; Markman v. State, Fla. App. 1968, 210 So. 2d 486; Lattimore v. State, Fla. App. 1368, 214 So. 2d 771; Chariott v. State, Fla. App. 1969, 226 So. 2d 359. All questions of admissibility on grounds other than the failure to give warnings as to consti…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Jones, 204 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1967)
- Coleman v. State ex rel. Costello Jackson, 140 Fla. 772 (Fla. 1939)
- Willoughby v. State, 203 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)