WALLACE PONDER, 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 armed robbery, rejecting the appellant's arguments that the corpus delicti was not proven, that identification evidence was improperly admitted, and that confession statements were inadmissible. The court found the evidence sufficient to establish fear, that the lineup identification was not subject to retroactive application of *Wade*, and that fingerprint and confession evidence were properly admitted.
No, the trial court did not err. The corpus delicti was sufficiently proven, the identification evidence was properly admitted, and the confession was voluntary and admissible.
“We have considered those contentions in the light of the record and briefs, and find them to be without merit.”
Establishes the court's overall finding regarding the appellant's arguments.
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 convicted of armed robbery. He appealed, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti, that identification eviden…
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 Fingerprint Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
In seeking reversal of his conviction for armed robbery, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in several respects, viz: that the corpus delicti was not proved; that identification evidence from a line-up, and by fingerprint was improperly allowed; and that the court improperly admitted confession statements. We have considered those contentions in the light of the record and briefs, and find them to be without merit. We reject appellant’s argument that the evidence did not show the victim was put in fear. There was evidence force was used and that a cocked gun was held at the person’s head. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, relied on with respect to the line-up, was not applicable as that case does not have retroactive reach (Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199). The circumstances relating to the fingerprint evidence justified its admission. There was testimony that the print was made at the time of the alleged offense. Regarding the confession, it was shown the defendant was properly warned of his rights under the Miranda decision, and on the evidence presented relating thereto, the court was not in error in ruling that the confession was freely and voluntarily made.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ulysses Ulice Gilbert v. State, 347 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…, nevertheless, held that where the circumstances were such as to ordinarily induce fear in the mind of a reasonable man, then the victim may be found to be in fear, and actual fear need not be strictly and precisely shown. See also Ponder v. State, 221 So. 2d 437 (Fla.3d DCA 1969), and Solloa v. State, 227 So. 2d 217 (Fla.3d DCA 1969). We see no reason why the same rule should not apply to aggravated assault. That is, where the assault is accomplished by the pointing of a gun in a threatening manner, and wi…
-
Lattimore v. State, 571 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…police responded to the subject call; and the house showed signs of an entry into the house and theft of property therein. See State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823, 825 (Fla.1976); Knight v. State, 402 So. 2d 435, 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Ponder v. State, 221 So. 2d 437, 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); see also Bates v. State, 465 So. 2d 490, 492 (Fla.1985) (slight victim injury; robbery proved), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 873, 108 S.Ct. 212, 98 L.Ed.2d 163 (1987); Santiago v. State, 497 So. 2d 975, 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (sa…
-
Bunk v. State, 231 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…re prospective only and apply only to confrontations conducted after June 12, 1967. See Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967). These rules are prospective and not retroactive in Florida. Ponder v. State, Fla.App.1969, 221 So. 2d 437. The photographic identification challenged herein took place prior to June 12, 1967. Bunk was indicted on June 8, 1967 for allegedly raping the victim between March 11 and 14, 1967, and a capias issued for his arrest on that date. The confrontatio…
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
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1967)
- Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1967)