OSCAR PAUL MOYEN, KENNETH BREWER AND PAUL LESTER KETCHUM, APPELLANTS,
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.
Three men were convicted of robbing the office of 'Six-Gun Territory,' a tourist attraction in Marion County, Florida. On appeal, they challenged the sufficiency of evidence and the trial court's refusal to grant a change of venue based on alleged prejudicial publicity, but the appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence sufficient and no abuse of discretion in the venue denial.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was amply sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the change of venue motion, as appellants failed to demonstrate such abuse despite arguments about the sensitivity of Marion County residents to crimes affecting tourism.
“it seems to us that the reportorial publicity surrounding the robbery was little more than the appellants should have expected in the event they completed their plans to stage a real robbery at the very scene where so many fictional robberies had been staged”
The court rejected appellants' argument that media coverage was prejudicial, noting the irony that a real robbery at a fictional robbery tourist attraction deserved the attention it received.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants robbed the office of 'Six-Gun Territory,' a frontier town tourist attraction in Marion County, Florida. They tied up the watchman with adhe…
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 Change Of Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants seek reversal of a judgment of conviction and sentence upon being found guilty of the crime of robbery by a jury. Paradoxically, the object of appellants’ felonious conduct was a tourist attraction in Marion County, Florida, known as “Six-Gun Territory”. The aforementioned paradox arises from the victim’s advertisements by which it invites prospective patrons to visit its simulation of a frontier town in the days of the legendary cowboys *459and their equally legendary shoot-outs in the middle of the town’s lone street in front of either the bank or the saloon.
Almost as though following their victim’s own script, the appellants robbed the office of the “Six-Gun Territory” after tying up the lone watchman with adhesive tape and proceeding to cut their way into the office safe where the loot was kept in supposed safety from modern society’s counterpart of the highwaymen of the old west.
Appellants raise four points for reversal, three of which relate to the evidence adduced at the trial and its sufficiency. Our review of the testimony and consideration of the authorities cited by appellants in their brief leave us with the view that the evidence was properly adduced and was amply sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict of guilty.
The remaining point on appeal is the contention of appellants that the trial court erred in failing to grant their motion for change of venue. The gist of appellants’ change of venue motion was that the news reports of the robbery of the tourist attraction, Six-Gun Territory, were particularly prejudicial inasmuch as tourism is a major industry in Marion County; and, therefore, the populace is especially sensitive to occurrences related to that industry. In the case at bar, of course, the robbery charged occurred at a major tourist attraction in the county.
Our consideration of the manner in which the news media reported the robbery gives us no particular cause for concern. On the contrary, it seems to us that the reportorial publicity surrounding the robbery was little more than the appellants should have expected in the event they completed their plans to stage a real robbery at the very scene where so many fictional robberies had been staged.
In Singer v. State, 109 So.2d 7 (Fla. 1959), the Supreme Court held that a ruling on a motion for change of venue in a criminal case is largely within the sound discretion of the judge presiding over the trial. To reverse a trial court’s ruling on such a motion, it is necessary for the appellant to demonstrate that the trial judge abused his discretion. Such a showing has not been made by the appellants here.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.