RONALD RAY MOFFETT, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed robbery conviction, holding that the trial judge properly refused a requested identification instruction and that prosecutor's closing remarks were not reversible error.
The trial judge did not err in refusing a requested jury instruction on identification where the general instructions and alibi instructions adequately covered the issue, and the prosecutor's remarks during closing argument did not constitute reversible error.
[1] A trial court does not err in refusing a requested jury instruction on identification when general instructions and alibi instructions adequately address the issue and th…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of robbing a liquor store in Escambia County. Two victims identified him as one of the perpetrators, and he presented an alibi…
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 Identification Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was convicted of robbing a liquor store in Escambia County. He contends that the trial judge’s refusal to give a requested instruction on the question of identification was reversible error. Also it is contended that the prosecutor’s remarks to the jury during closing argument were prejudicial and warrant a new trial.
The State contends that the instructions to the jury concerning appellant’s alibi defense, together with the general instructions given, adequately cover the question of identification. We agree. We have meticulously examined testimony of the two victims identifying appellant as one of the perpetrators and find that such evidence was clear and unhesitating. It was therefore susceptible of belief by the jury. Appellant’s evidence presented in support of his alibi was equally clear and unhesitating. It too was susceptible of belief by the jury. The controverted factual issue thusly presented was resolved by the jury against the appellant. It is apodictic that we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the jury on such factual questions.
We have considered the remaining question relating to the prosecutor’s remarks and find that the tenor of the remarks when taken in the context in which they were made, including the retaliatory characteristics of such remarks, does not constitute reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is
Affirmed.
JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moffett v. State, 240 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1970)…Certiorari denied. 238 So. 2d 456. ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.…