ROGER HAMRICK, 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 court held that the defendant's claims regarding jury size, witness identification, and prosecutorial misconduct were without merit, and thus affirmed the conviction.
The defendant was convicted of four counts of robbery after a jury trial. He appealed the conviction, raising several issues regarding the trial proce…
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 Legality Of Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the defendant, Roger Hamrick, from his judgment of conviction on four counts of robbery after a jury trial.
His claim that he was entitled to a twelve man jury for his trial in this matter is without merit. Hearns v. State, Fla.1969, 223 So.2d 738 and Williams v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 406.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a witness concerning his identification. His argument on this point is divided into two parts. The first part is directed towards the alleged illegality of his arrest and the fact that photographs were taken of him at the time he was booked. We have reviewed the record, briefs and authorities and do not find reversible error on the first part. See Newbold v. State, Fla.App.1969, 229 So.2d 876. Hanks v. State, Fla.App.1967, 195 So.2d 49; and Reeves v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 403. The appellant’s argument on the second part of this point has been reviewed and rejected in Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968).
Appellant claims the trial court erred in not granting his motion for mistrial because of allegedly prejudicial remarks which the prosecutor made during closing arguments. We have reviewed the remarks and do not find them sufficiently prejudicial to warrant reversal under the facts and inferences which could be drawn from the evidence presented in this case. See Collins v. State, Fla.1965, 180 So.2d 340; Spencer v. State, Fla.1961, 133 So.2d 729; Whitney v. State, Fla.1961, 132 So.2d 599; and Wingate v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 44.
*361We have considered the other arguments advanced by appellant for reversal and find them to be insufficient to warrant reversal.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Darden v. State, 329 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1976)…SUNDBERG, J., dissents with an opinion, with which ENGLAND, J., concurs. . cf. Arline v. State, 303 So. 2d 37 (Fla.App. 1974). . Collins v. State, 180 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1965). . Sanders v. State, 241 So. 2d 430 (Fla.App. 1970) ; Hamrick v. State, 235 So. 2d 360 (Fla.App.1970), cert. den. 238 So. 2d 421 (Fla.) cert. den. 400 U.S. 994, 91 S.Ct. 466, 27 L.Ed.2d 443. . State v. Jones, 204 So. 2d 515 (Fla.1967).…
-
Wilson v. State, 305 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…le degree of latitude is allowed prosecutors in closing argument, and logical inferences from the evidence are permissible. See Spencer v. State, Fla.1961, 133 So. 2d 729; Myers v. State, Fla.App.1972, 256 So. 2d 400; Hamrick v. State, Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 360. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment and conviction be and the same hereby are affirmed. Affirmed.…
-
Yanks v. State, 261 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…d to the language of the prosecutor and does not present reversible error. Collins v. State, Fla.1965, 180 So. 2d 340; Whitney v. State, Fla.1961, 132 So. 2d 599; Goddard v. State, 143 Fla. 28, 196 So. 596 (1940); and Hamrick v. State, Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 360. We have reviewed the charge to the jury and find that it cannot reasonably be said to be confusing. A reviewing [*534] court will look to the entire charge rather than to one statement out of context in determining whether a charge to the jury is e…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1968)
- Emmitt Monroe Spencer v. State, 133 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1961)
- Wingate v. State, 232 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Collins v. State, 180 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1965)
- Whitney v. State, 132 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1961)
- Hanks v. State, 195 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Williams v. State, 224 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Hearns v. State, 223 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1969)
- Newbold v. State, 229 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Reeves v. State, 187 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)