BEN LOPEZ AND MARIA ROSA GONZALEZ, 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.
Ben Lopez and Maria Rosa Gonzalez were convicted by jury of grand larceny after being apprehended removing merchandise from their employer's store. On appeal, they challenged the sufficiency of evidence and raised five procedural errors, all of which the court rejected and affirmed the conviction.
The court affirmed the convictions, finding the evidence sufficient and rejecting all five procedural challenges. None of the alleged procedural errors constituted reversible error.
[1] Evidence of being apprehended in the act of removing merchandise from an employer's store is sufficient to support a grand larceny conviction.
[2] Allowing an unlisted witness to testify does not constitute reversible error if the circumstances do not present reversible error.
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 State proved that the appellants were apprehended in the act of removing a large quantity of merchandise from a store in which they were employed.”
Establishes the factual basis for the grand larceny convictions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants were apprehended in the act of removing a large quantity of merchandise from a store in which they were employed. The State presented evide…
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 Discovery Depositions cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a consolidated appeal from convictions of grand larceny returned by a jury in the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County. The State proved that the appellants were apprehended in the act of removing a large quantity of merchandise from a store in which they were employed. On this appeal, appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgments, and raise five additional points alleging procedural errors in the trial.
Turning first to the point concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, we have examined the record and find the evidence sufficient.
The first procedural point urges error because the court allowed an unlisted witness to testify. It does not present reversible error for the reasons given in Buttler v. State, Fla.App.1970, 238 So.2d 313. But see Ramirez v. State, Fla.App.1970, 241 So.2d 744.
Appellants’ second point, which urges error because the court allowed two police officers to testify when they had not appeared for discovery depositions, does not show an abuse of discretion. It appears that the officers’ failure to respond at the time of the taking of the depositions was not deliberate. The trial judge would have permitted their depositions to be taken at a later time in the proceedings. It is appellants’ burden to show prejudicial error. See Richardson v. State, Fla.1971, 246 So.2d 771.
Appellants’ third and fourth points are directed to an adverse ruling concerning objections to questions propounded to witnesses, and to an adverse ruling concerning the best evidence rule. The record reveals that appellants had a full, fair trial. The evidentiary rulings complained of concerned nonessential matters. The court’s rulings did not tend to prejudice the defendants before the jury, nor did the rulings prevent appellants from presenting matters important to their defense. No prejudicial error has been demonstrated. See Cornelius v. State, Fla.1950, 49 So.2d 332; Bryant v. State, 89 Fla. 26, 103 So. 170 (1925).
The last point urges that the court erred in not granting a mistrial after the prosecuting attorney made a comment during final argument. This point is applicable only to the appellant Gonzalez. A reading of the comment convinces us that there is no reasonable basis upon which the jury could have interpreted it as a comment upon appellant Gonzalez’s failure to testify. See Parks v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 431.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hahn v. State, 626 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…comments calculated to show bad character are irrelevant). As “Kathy” was a crucial eye witness to the stabbing giving rise to the charges against Hahn, discrediting her in front of the jury was prejudicial to Hahn’s defense. Compare Lopez v. State, 264 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 268 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1972) (standing for the general rule that evidentiary rulings do not constitute prejudicial error, if they do not prejudice the defendant in front of the jury). Thus, reversal based upon this point on…
-
Santana v. State, 535 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…e defendant as to upset the instant convictions. § 59.041, Fla.Stat. (1985). Cf. Pritchett v. State, 414 So. 2d 2, 3 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 424 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1982); Ballard v. State, 323 So. 2d 297, 300-01 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Lopez v. State, 264 So. 2d 69, 70 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 268 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1972); Mahone v. State, 222 So. 2d 769, 771-72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). Finally, the remaining points have no merit and require no discussion. AFFIRMED.…
-
Lopez v. State, 268 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1972)…Certiorari denied. 264 So. 2d 69. ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS, and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
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
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Ramirez v. State, 241 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Cornelius v. State, 49 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1950)
- Buttler v. State, 238 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Walker Bryant v. State, 89 Fla. 26 (Fla. 1925)
- Parks v. State, 206 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)