HARRY GRAYS, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a robbery conviction, holding that the prosecutor's cross-examination questions did not unfairly prejudice the jury and that the trial court did not err in denying a document production request or in requiring the defendant to show his chest.
The court held that the prosecutor's questions did not create an unfair prejudice, that the denial of the document request was not error because the records were public and accessible, and that requiring the appellant to show his chest was not reversible error.
“Relying on Messer v. State, 120 Fla. 95, 162 So. 146, appellant contends certain questions propounded by the prosecuting assistant state attorney to the appellant and his witnesses, on cross-examination, created an innuendo that appellant had been involved in other crimes not relevant under the decision in Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 654, 656, such as to "arouse in the minds of the jury a spirit of resentment" against the appellant and thus deprive him of a fair trial.”
This quote outlines the appellant's primary argument regarding prosecutorial misconduct and unfair prejudice.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarry Grays was tried by a jury, convicted of robbery, and appealed his conviction. He argued that the prosecutor's cross-examination questions implie…
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 Cross-Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was informed against, tried by a jury, convicted and adjudged guilty of robbery. His several contentions on appeal have been considered in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel, and are held to be without merit. Relying on Messer v. State, 120 Fla. 95, 162 So. 146, appellant contends certain questions propounded by the prosecuting assistant state attorney to the appellant and his witnesses, on cross-examination, created an innuendo that appellant had been involved in other crimes not relevant under the decision in Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 654, 656, such as to “arouse in the minds of the jury a spirit of resentment” against the appellant and thus deprive him of a fair trial. We cannot agree, on this record. See Feldman v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 194 So.2d 48. Inspection of the record convinces us that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. The trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to require the state attorney to produce certain documents, which consisted of public records open to inspection under § 119.01 Fla. Stat., F.S.A., was not error. No reversible *134error was committed by the trial court in requiring the appellant, at trial, to show his chest, where the victims testified that a scar had been observed on appellant’s exposed chest at the time of the alleged offense. We make no ruling on appellant’s challenge of the constitutionality of his trial by six rather than by twelve jurors, as the contention was not raised in the trial court.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mahone v. State, 222 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…t the items mentioned in the argument under this point are public records and that an appellant may not claim error in the absence of a showing that he made a .easonable effort and was unable to procure the records. See Grays v. State, Fla.App.1969, 217 So. 2d 133. See also § 119.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Point four claims that appellant’s constitutional rights were violated when he was tried before a jury of six members.3 The point is not supported by an objection in the trial court. Under the decided cases the…1 / 2
-
Koedatich v. State, 263 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…irst time on appeal, therefore, this argument cannot be considered by the court. Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1971, 249 So. 2d 510; Reis v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So. 2d 666; Mahone v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 769; Grays v. State, Fla.App.1969, 217 So. 2d 133. Defendant further charges that he was represented by ineffectual counsel at trial. We find defendant was ably represented. See, Bendelow v. United States, 418 F. 2d 42 (5th Cir.1969); Odom v. United States, 377 F. 2d 853 (5th Cir.1967); Biggs v. U…
-
Roberts v. State, 226 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Grays v. State, Fla. App.1969, 217 So. 2d 133; Stuckey v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So. 2d 137; Wright v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 264; Eizenman v. State, Fla.App.1961, 132 So. 2d 763; Martin v. State, 100 Fla. 16, 129 So. 112: Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 119…
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
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Messer v. State, 120 Fla. 95 (Fla. 1935)
- Feldman v. State, 194 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)