HOLLIS SMITH AND EDMOND J. DUHART, APPELLANTS,
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.
Smith and Duhart appealed their robbery convictions, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, closing argument remarks, and evidentiary rulings. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed their convictions, finding the evidence sufficient and no reversible error in the trial court's evidentiary or procedural rulings.
The Court affirmed both convictions, holding that the circumstantial and identification evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdicts, the closing argument remarks did not constitute fundamental error, the denial of the mistrial motion was proper, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the officer's testimony.
[1] Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if it excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
[2] Identification evidence is sufficient to sustain a jury verdict if it is competent and supports the factual determination.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A review of the evidence refutes this argument.”
Court's summary rejection of Smith's claim that circumstantial evidence did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith and Duhart were convicted of robbery. Smith's conviction was based on circumstantial evidence. Duhart's conviction relied on identification evid…
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 Mistrial Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendants, Smith and Duhart, appeal from their judgments of conviction on the charge of robbery.
Smith argues that his conviction was based upon circumstantial evidence which did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. A review of the evidence refutes this argument. See Williams v. State, 73 Fla. 1198, 75 So. 785 (1917); Douglas v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 653, and Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24.
Duhart claims that the evidence of his identification was insufficient to sustain *603the jury verdict of guilty and the judgment of conviction. The record reveals sufficient, competent evidence concerning the identification of the defendant Duhart to submit this factual issue to the jury for determination. Harris v. State, 129 Fla. 733, 177 So. 187 (1937); and Stuckey v. State, Fla.App.1967,199 So.2d 137.
Smith and Duhart claim that the state committed prejudicial and reversible error in making certain remarks in its closing arguments to the jury.
Counsel for the defendants did not object to the first remarks of the state in the closing argument. Defendants claim that these remarks were prejudicial for the first time on appeal. This they cannot do. We have examined the closing argument of the state, however, and find that the remarks complained of for the first time on appeal do not constitute fundamental, or prejudicial error.
The prosecution did make one statement in closing argument which the defendants properly objected to and which objection was sustained. Defendants then moved for a mistrial which was denied and they charge that this ruling was reversible error. The denial of the motion of the defendants for a mistrial was proper in these circumstances. See Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850, 130 So. 582 (1930) ; and Burkhead v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 206 So.2d 690.
The defendants’ last point for reversal is that the trial court abused its discretion and erred in permitting an officer to testify as to their identity and to the date of the alleged robbery after the rule excluding witnesses was invoked. The record does not reflect a prejudicial abuse of discretion by the trial judge in this ruling. Spencer v. State, Fla.1961, 133 So.2d 729; and Griffin v. State, Fla.App.1960, 124 So. 2d 38.
The final judgments herein appealed are
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 326 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1975)…eep the balance true.’ “The Court now recants the statement of the exception upon which respondent relies and henceforth will review challenged argument of prosecutors only when an objection is timely made.” (emphasis supplied) Cf. Smith v. State, 243 So. 2d 602 (Fla.App.1971); Hall v. State, 203 So. 2d 202 (Fla.App.1967). As to those remarks to which appellant failed to object, this Court will not consider appellant’s objections. The two remarks which were objected to by defense counsel, to-wit: “The ent…
-
Kruglak v. State, 300 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…imely objection interposed at trial, defendant may not raise objections to remarks of the prosecutor for the first time on appeal. State v. Jones, Fla. 1967, 204 So. 2d 515; Hall v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 202; Smith v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 243 So. 2d 602. Appellant secondly argues that the trial court erred in allowing witnesses to testify for the state, whose identities were not supplied to the appellant, even though he timely had demanded their identities. Upon the failure of a party to make dis…
-
Grimsley v. State, 304 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…the first .time on appeal. No objection to the remarks was made at the trial and appellant did not raise this point as an issue in her motion for new trial. The question cannot now be raised for the first time on appeal. Smith v. State, Fla.App.3rd, 243 So. 2d 602; Weeks v. State, Fla.App.2d, 241 So. 2d 203; and State v. Jones, Fla. 204 So. 2d 515. Appellant next contends that the trial court erred in denying her the right to make the opening and closing final arguments to the jury. Rule 3.250, F.R.Cr.P. (fo…
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
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850 (Fla. 1930)
- Emmitt Monroe Spencer v. State, 133 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1961)
- Ira Douglas v. State, 214 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Cassie Williams v. State, 73 Fla. 1198 (Fla. 1917)
- Burkhead v. State, 206 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Augustus Harris v. State, 129 Fla. 733 (Fla. 1937)
- Griffin v. State, 124 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Conch v. City OF Miami, 199 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)