JERRY MARTIN, 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 the conviction of the appellant for robbery, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on evidence, jury instructions, or prosecutorial remarks. The court addressed multiple grounds for appeal, including the exclusion of expert testimony and the admission of physical evidence.
The appellate court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error in any of the appellant's grounds for appeal. The rulings on evidence, jury instructions, and prosecutorial remarks were found to be correct, and the evidence was deemed sufficient.
“the unsupported statement of the defendant was the major substantial fact if not the whole foundation” of the doctors’ opinions.”
Reasoning for excluding psychiatric testimony.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was charged with robbery and convicted by a jury. He appealed his conviction, raising eight points of error. These included the exclusio…
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 Expert Testimony Admissibility cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was informed against, charged with robbery. Tried before a jury, he was convicted and was adjudged guilty. Appealing therefrom he presents eight points as grounds for reversal. On consideration thereof, in the light of the record and briefs, we find no reversible error is shown, and affirm.
The trial court ruled correctly in rejecting the proffered testimony of two psychiatrists, where “the unsupported statement of the defendant was the major substantial fact if not the whole foundation” of the doctors’ opinions. Cirack v. State, Fla.1967, 201 So.2d 706. We find no harmful error in the ruling of the trial court admitting into evidence the physical evidence offered by the state. The degree of variance of the proofs, complained of by appellant, was not material. See Cannon v. State, 91 Fla. 214, 107 So. 360. The trial court properly ruled out defendant’s question on cross-examination for comparison of defendant’s fingerprints with prints on the physical evidence which was introduced. The court held, and correctly so, that no proper predicate had been laid. Therefore, Coco v. State, Fla.1953, 62 So. 2d 892, was not applicable. In view of the showing at trial that others were involved, the trial court did not commit error in charging the jury regarding aiding and abetting, under § 776.011 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The trial court was correct in ruling that the introduction of evidence on behalf of the defendant-appellant, in the form of the transcribed testimony of a witness given at a prior trial, operated to deprive the defendant of the right to open and close. Crosby v. State, 90 Fla. 381, 106 So. 741. We have examined the remarks made by the prosecutor in argument which were the basis for a motion by defendant for mistrial, and find them not to be such as to have required that the motion for mistrial be *197granted. On inspection of the record we reject as without merit the final contention of the appellant of insufficiency of the evidence.
Whereupon, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tullis v. State, 556 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…hnson v. State, 478 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), cause dismissed, 488 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1986); Smith v. State, 314 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 345 So. 2d 427 (Fla.1976), cert. discharged, 343 So. 2d 598 (Fla.1977); Martin v. State, 218 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). We conclude that the exclusion of the testimony was correct and that, contrary to defendant’s assertions, the ruling did not violate the defendant’s confrontation rights as construed in Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S…
-
Murphy v. State, 252 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…tion from interviews with the appellant and there were no independent “tests” that their testimony as to appellant’s mental condition was incompetent. Appellant relies upon Cirack v. State, Fla.1967, 201 So. 2d 706 and Martin v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So. 2d 195 for this proposition. We do not think the authority cited supports a reversal here. The cases cited hold that where the testimony of a witness is based upon a particular evidentiary statement from the defendant the testimony may be excluded. [*388]…
-
King v. State, 412 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Bell v. State, 93 So. 2d 575 (Fla.1957); Miller v. State, 389 So. 2d 1210 [*883] (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Hampton v. State, 336 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 339 So. 2d 1169 (Fla.1976); Martin v. State, 218 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).…
Authorities Cited
- Cannon v. State, 107 So. 360 (Fla. 1926)
- Coco v. State, 62 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1953)
- Cirack v. State, 201 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1967)
- Crosby v. State, 90 Fla. 381 (Fla. 1925)