TONY GIAMO, 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.
Tony Giamo was convicted of bribery after a jury trial and sentenced to five years in prison. He appealed on seven grounds challenging the sufficiency of the information and various evidentiary and procedural rulings, all of which the appellate court rejected as lacking merit.
The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no reversible error on any of the seven points presented. The information's execution by an assigned state's attorney was proper, all evidentiary rulings were admissible under established law, cross-examination limitations did not impair due process, voir dire references caused no prejudice, and denial of the mistrial motion was proper given the trial court's prompt corrective instruction.
[1] An information signed by a state's attorney assigned to a judicial circuit by executive order is valid.
[2] Evidence of a defendant's actions at the time of arrest is material in a bribery prosecution.
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“The law has been established in this state that such evidence is material.”
Establishes that evidence of defendant's actions at time of arrest is material and admissible in bribery prosecutions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGiamo was indicted and tried before a court with jury for the crime of bribery. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in the state penitenti…
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 Cross-Examination Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was charged by indictment and information filed pursuant thereto with the crime of bribery. He was tried before the court with jury and found guilty. He has appealed the judgment and sentence of five years in the state penitentiary to this court.
*117Appellant has presented seven points on appeal. The first challenges the sufficiency of the information because it was signed by a state’s attorney assigned to the 11th judicial circuit by executive order pursuant to F.S. § 27.14, F.S.A. This point has been decided by this court adversely to appellant’s position. Hart v. State, 144 Fla. 409, 198 So. 120 (1940); State ex rel. Amaro v. Goodman, Fla.App. 1970, 231 So.2d 271.
The remaining points claim error requiring reversal for a new trial because of evidentiary and procedural rulings during the progress of the trial. We turn first to the rulings on evidence. It is urged that the testimony of Officer Klein relative to appellant’s actions at the time of his arrest was immaterial. The law has been established in this state that such evidence is material. See Carr v. State, 45 Fla. 11, 34 So. 892 (1903); State v. Young, Fla. 1968, 217 So.2d 567. Next it is urged that although the state proved the criminal actions of the defendant on the date set out in the information it was reversable error to allow evidence of similar acts preparatory to and subsequent to the bribery proved. This evidence was admissable under the rule laid down in Williams v. State, Fla. 1959, 110 So.2d 654.
Turning now to the procedural rulings which are made points on appeal, we find no reversable error. Appellant urges that he was denied the right to fully cross-examine one of the state’s witnesses. The record does not support this conclusion. The limitations imposed upon cross-examination were proper in order to prevent the trial from being converted into a trial of the state’s witness. Appellant’s right to due process was in no way impaired. See Matera v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 180.
The appellant has presented a question concerning references upon voir dire examination to previous cases involving testimony by the state’s witness, Charles Ce-lona. No assignment of error is directed to any ruling by the trial court and our examination of the record convinces us that no prejudice resulted from the references made.
The last point to be discussed raises a question as to the prejudicial effect of specified remarks made by the prosecuting attorney during closing argument. Appellant objected and then moved for a mistrial because the prosecuting attorney made an improper reference imputing probative value to the fact that the information was based upon a grand jury indictment. The court promptly and fully instructed the jury that the argument was improper and not to be considered. He reminded the jury of their duty to decide the case only upon the evidence before them. In view of the discretion which is exercised by a trial judge in such matters, we hold that no error was committed in denying appellant’s motion for a mistrial. See Kelly v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 901.
Having examined each point presented and finding no reversable error, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Giamo v. State, 251 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1971)…Certiorari denied. 245 So. 2d 116. CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
-
Giamo v. State, 275 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…ished by this court to the trial court, sets forth the basis of the trial court’s ruling. Appellant was found guilty of bribery and sentenced to the state prison. The judgment and sentence were upheld upon appeal. See Giamo v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 116, cert. denied, Fla.1971, 251 So. 2d 878. Appellant’s petition pursuant to Rule 3.850, CrPR, attempted to raise a claim that since he was convicted as an aider and abettor, and his principal had been found not guilty, he was therefore entitled to dis…
-
Murchison v. State, 328 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…t, Fla. 1954, 76 So. 2d 494; Cornelius v. State, Fla.1950, 49 So. 2d 332; Hart v. State, 144 Fla. 409, 198 So. 120 (1940); Ramirez v. State, Fla. App.1970, 241 So. 2d 744; Buttler v. State, Fla.App.1970, 238 So. 2d 313; Giamo v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 116, cert. den. 251 So. 2d 878 (Fla.1971).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- State v. Young, 217 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1968)
- Matera v. State, 218 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Coy Kelly v. State, 202 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Carr v. State, 45 Fla. 11 (Fla. 1903)
- Hart v. State, 144 Fla. 409 (Fla. 1940)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Eugenio Amaro v. Honorable Murray Goodman, 231 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)