JEWEL EVANGELINE ROWAN, 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.
Jewel Evangeline Rowan was convicted of third-degree murder after being charged with second-degree murder. On appeal, she challenged the sufficiency of evidence and the trial court's allowance of an unlisted rebuttal witness, but the appellate court found no reversible error and affirmed the conviction.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support conviction for third-degree murder, the jury's conviction for the lesser degree of murder was permissible in law, and the trial court did not commit reversible error in allowing the unlisted rebuttal witness.
[1] A jury may permissibly convict a defendant of a lesser degree of murder than that charged, provided sufficient evidence supports the conviction of the lesser offense.
[2] A trial court has the discretion to permit the use of a rebuttal witness not previously listed, especially when the need for such testimony is prompted by the defendant's…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“While the evidence was not without conflict, the record discloses a sufficiency of evidence upon which the defendant could have been found guilty of second degree murder. The jury's conviction of the defendant for the lesser degree of murder was permissible in law.”
Establishes that despite evidentiary conflicts, sufficient evidence existed for conviction and the jury's verdict for a lesser included offense was legally valid.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Rowan was charged by information with second-degree murder. At trial, she was found guilty of the lesser charge of third-degree murder and s…
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 Third Degree Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was charged by information with the crime of murder in the second degree. Upon trial she was found guilty of murder in the third degree and was so adjudged, and sentenced accordingly. On her appeal therefrom it is argued the evidence was insufficient to permit conviction for the crime of murder in the third degree, and was insufficient to have supported a finding of guilt of the crime charged. It is further contended by appellant that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing, over objection, use by the state of a rebuttal witness who had not been included in a furnished list of prospective witnesses.
Upon consideration thereof in the light of the record and briefs we conclude no reversible error has been made to appear. While the evidence was not without conflict, the record discloses a sufficiency of evidence upon which the defendant could have been found guilty of second degree murder. The jury’s conviction of *852the defendant for the lesser degree of murder was permissible in law. The ruling allowing the state to use a rebuttal witness not previously listed was within the discretion of the trial court, and the circumstances in which the ruling was made were not shown to be such as should cause this court to reverse the judgment. See Rhome v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 431; Buttler v. State, Fla.App. 1970, 238 So.2d 313; Howard v. State, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 83. In conformity to those rulings, the trial court in its discretion may permit production of testimony of a rebuttal witness not previously listed, where the need or occasion for such rebuttal testimony is prompted by testimony presented on behalf of the defendant, and where the necessity for it reasonably may not have been anticipated.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lucas v. State, 376 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1979)…reasonably anticipate, are included within the operation of the rule. Hardison v. State, 341 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977); Frazier v. State, 336 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Breedlove v. State, 295 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Rowan v. State, 252 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). The rule further provides: (j) Sanctions. (1) If, at any time during the course of the proceedings, it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with an applicable discovery rule . . . the cour…
-
Kilpatrick v. State, 376 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1979)…sentation by the opposition of evidence which causes surprise. See, e. g. Holman v. State, 347 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Breedlove v. State, 295 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); C.A.W. v. State, 295 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Rowan v. State, 252 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). [*391] The record does not disclose any attempt by defense counsel, after arguing his objection, to seek an alternative remedy such as a recess or continuance to allow him to interview or depose the witness in order to better pre…
-
Holman v. State, 347 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…this court has repeatedly noted that the trial court’s decision to allow a non-listed rebuttal witness is a matter of discretion, dependent on the circumstances of the case. Breedlove v. State, 295 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1974); Rowan v. State, 252 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1971). Turning to the facts in this case, the record discloses the victim identified the defendant, through police photographs, at a lineup and at trial as the person who broke into her home, robbed her, and brutally assaulted her.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rhome v. State, 222 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Buttler v. State, 238 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Howard v. State, 239 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)