HIRAM CAZES PARNELL, 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 Parnell's conviction after the Florida Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's earlier decision that had found the search unlawful. On remand, the appellate court examined three additional points of error and found none warranted reversal.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld the trial court's denial of the suppression motion. On remand, the appellate court found no harmful error in the admission of the detective conversation or physical evidence, and found the verdict was supported by the evidence.
“No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court after an examination of all of the appeal papers is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant.”
States the standard of review requiring that error must injuriously affect substantial rights to warrant reversal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceParnell was convicted of a crime. At trial, evidence was obtained from a search of his home. Additionally, a lengthy conversation between Parnell and …
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 Erroneous Admission Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
REVISED OPINION
Pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida, filed herein April 19, 1969, the opinion and judgment of this court, filed December S, 1967, which reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded the cause for new trial, is hereby vacated.
The appellant had presented four points for consideration on his appeal to this court. The first point challenged the correctness of the trial court’s ruling denying a motion to suppress certain evidence obtained on a search of the appellant’s home, on the ground that the search was unlawful. Finding merit in that first contention, this court reversed and remanded for new trial, without ruling on the other three points raised by the appellant (204 So.2d 910). On review thereof on petition for certiorari the Supreme Court, by an opinion filed April 2, 1969 (221 So.2d 129), held the ruling of the trial court in denying the motion to suppress was not error, and quashed the contrary opinion and judgment of this court.
Following the remand of the cause here, we have considered the additional three points raised on the appeal. The second point was a contention that the trial court erred in allowing into evidence a lengthy conversation, between the appellant and a detective who at the time posed as a fence, which disclosed certain evidence pointing to guilt of the defendant and matters relevant thereto, but which the appellant contended also contained other matter prejudicial to him and not relevant. Upon examination of the record we conclude that harmful error incident thereto was not shown. See Section 924.33, Fla.Stat., F.S. A., which provides: “No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court after an examination of all of the appeal papers is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. It shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant.”
The remaining contentions of the appellant, as to which we also find no error, challenged the correctness of the admission of certain physical evidence, and claimed the verdict was inconsistent with and not supported by the evidence.
No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Darion Northrup Castle v. State, 305 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…they are admissible in evidence, cf., Bretti v. Wainwright, 439 F. 2d 1042 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. den. 404 U.S. 943, 92 S.Ct. 293, 30 L.Ed.2d 257; United States v. Green, 474 F. 2d 1385 (5th Cir. 1973); State v. Parnell, 221 So. 2d 129, on rehearing 233 So. 2d 437 (Fla.1969); Boim v. State, 194 So. 2d 313 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1967); Farrington v. State, 207 So. 2d 513 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1968); Riley v. State, 263 So. 2d 200 (Fla.1972); and Powers v. State, 271 So. 2d 462 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1973). There has been no suggestion…
-
Gelis v. State, 249 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…t does not fulfill the requirement of the statute that it “set forth the facts on which such reason or belief is based.” Parnell v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So. 2d 910, rev’d on other grounds, Fla.1969, 221 So. 2d 129, opinion vacated, Fla.App.1969, 233 So. 2d 437. Therefore, items of evidence seized thereunder should have been suppressed and held inadmissible at trial. For the reasons stated the judgment appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded for new trial. Reversed and remanded for new trial. LIL…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hiram Cazes Parnell, 221 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1969)
- Hiram Cazes Parnell v. State, 204 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)