EDDIE LEE REED, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a conviction for assault with intent to commit a crime against nature, finding no reversible error in the admission of photographs or evidence of similar crimes.
No, the trial court did not err. The appellate court found no reversible error in the admission of the photographs or the evidence of similar crimes.
“Broad discretion is granted the trial judge] in the area of admissibility of photographs and will not be disturbed unless clearly abusive or patently in error.”
Establishes the standard of review for the admission of photographs.
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 by a jury of assault with intent to commit a crime against nature. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred by admi…
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 Pattern Of Criminality cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant raises two issues on this appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence pursuant to a jury verdict of guilty for the crime of assault with intent to commit a crime against nature. We affirm.
First, the appellant maintains the trial court let photographs into evidence that were improperly authenticated and that these photographs tended more to confuse and prejudice the jury than serve any probative value. Broad discretion is granted the trial judge] in the area of admissibility of photographs and will not be disturbed unless clearly abusive or patently in error. Dillen v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 904. See also 29 Am.Jur.2d 788. We find no reversible error on this issue.
*365Second, appellant maintains that evidence of similar crimes recently committed were admitted into evidence solely to prejudice the jury as to appellant’s character. It is well settled that relevant evidence of similar crimes committed within a reasonable space in time are admissible to show an intent, motive or pattern of criminalty. Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 654; Hawkins v. State, Fla.1968, 206 So.2d 5. We find from the record the evidence admitted conformed with this rule. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
WALDEN, C. J., and REED and OWEN, JJ-, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. State, 436 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1983)…urtney v. State, 358 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 365 So. 2d 710 (Fla.1978); Phillips v. State, 351 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 834 (Fla.1978); Allen v. State, 340 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Reed v. State, 224 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). No such abuse has been demonstrated in the instant case. This Court has held on numerous occasions that photographs will be admissible into evidence “if relevant to any issue required to be proven in a case.” State v. Wright, 26…
-
Garmise v. State, 311 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…ue. As a general rule, the admissibility of photographic evidence is within the broad discretion of the trial judge. The discretion will not be disturbed by an appellate court unless clearly abusive or patently in error. Reed v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So. 2d 364. Photographs taken at the scene of the crime are admissible in evidence if they tend to illustrate or explain the testimony of a witness1 or may be of assistance to the jury in understanding the testimony. Belger v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 171 So. 2d…
-
Erle W. McGOUGH v. State, 302 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1974)…lowed by the accused’. But reaching back to 1956 and 1957 to show a scheme or pattern for violating the law was prejudicially unnecessary, the same as if beating on a lame horse.” The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Reed v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 224 So. 2d 364, 365, also recognized the importance of “timeliness” by stating: “It is well settled that relevant evidence of similar crimes committed within a reasonable space in time are admissible to show an intent, motive or pattern of criminalty.” (Emphasis…
Previewing 3 of 10 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)
- Hawkins v. State, 206 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1968)
- Dillen v. State, 202 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)