R. L. LANG
v.
STATE
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.
R. L. Lang was convicted of larceny of an automobile and appealed to the Florida Supreme Court. The court affirmed the conviction, addressing three issues: sufficiency of evidence, exclusion of a witness (the defendant's mother), and alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument.
The court held that: (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; (2) the trial court did not commit reversible error in excluding the mother's testimony, though better practice would allow parents of minor defendants to remain present and testify; and (3) the record regarding prosecutorial misconduct was insufficiently developed to establish reversible error.
“The first question is, was the evidence sufficient to support the verdict and judgment? We must hold that it was.”
Establishes that the appellate court found the evidence at trial was sufficient to support conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR. L. Lang was tried for larceny of an automobile. During trial, the defendant invoked the rule excluding witnesses from the courtroom. The defendant'…
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 Larceny Of An Automobile cases and more on FLexlaw
There are really only three questions for us to determine on review of the judgment brought here under writ of error to the judgment of conviction of larceny of an automobile.
The first question is, was the evidence sufficient to support the verdict and judgment? We must hold that it was".
The second question is, “Did the court commit error in refusing to allow the mother of accused to testify in support of defendant’s claimed alibi after the defendant had invoked the rule as to exclusion of witnesses and after the proposed witness had remained in the court room throughout the trial, hearing the witnesses for and against the defendant, and was then offered as a witness to further sustain the claim of alibi?” This was a matter to be determined in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court. Under the facts as shown by the record before us, we cannot say' that revers.ble error was committed. We may say, however, that the better practice is to allow parents of minors who are placed on trial to remain in the court room with such minor defendants during the trial and to allow them to testify under the rules of evidence, regardless of the fact that witnesses generally have been excluded from the court room.
The third question is whether or not the court.committed reversible error in refusing to sustain the objections of the defendant to remarks made by the county solicitor in his arguments before the jury.
*130It appears from the record that the statements attributed to the prosecutor may have been improper but the record in this regard is not sufficiently full and complete for us to be able to say that the trial court committed reversible error in not sustaining objections thereto. The burden is on plaintiff in error to clearly show reversible error and on the whole record this has not been made to appear.
The judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Thomas, J., concur.
Chapman, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Whitfield and Brown not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 111 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…witnesses, is within the discretion of the [*298] trial judge and his ruling will not he disturbed unless it is made to appear that there was an abuse of discretion and that such abuse worked to the prejudice of the party complaining. Lang v. State, 137 Fla. 128, 187 So. 786; Young v. State, Fla.App., 99 So. 2d 304. There is no evidence in the record that the recording machine was played back before the witnesses, that they were in any manner influenced thereby, or that the defendant was in any wise prejudi…
-
Robinson v. State, 256 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…m. Notwithstanding such admonition in open court, the witness remained inside the courtroom. Under these circumstances, we do not find any abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in prohibiting this witness from testifying. Lang v. State, 137 Fla. 128, 187 So. 786; Pieze v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So. 2d 442. Therefore, the felony convictions here under review be and the same are hereby affirmed. And, following a review of a petition for rehearing [if filed] this cause will be transferred to th…
-
Pieze v. State, 243 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…ore, defendant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion in excluding a witness for violation of the witness rule. See generally, VI Wigmore, Evidence § 1838, pp. 352 et seq. (3d ed., 1940). As further authority, we quote from Lang v. State, 137 Fla. 128, 187 So. 786, 787: “The second question is, ‘Did the court commit error in refusing to allow the mother of the accused to testify in support of defendant’s claimed alibi after the defendant had invoked the rule as to exclusion of witnesses and afte…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence