ALEXANDER RAYNER, 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.
Alexander Rayner appeals his conviction for two counts of robbery by jury verdict. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence sufficient to establish aiding and abetting, rejecting claims of evidentiary error regarding witness testimony, and holding that Rayner's waiver of jury instructions on lesser included offenses was knowing and voluntary.
The court held that: (1) the evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction based on aiding, abetting, or procuring the commission of robbery, even if Rayner did not personally commit the acts; (2) the trial court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the victim's mother to testify, permitting some areas and excluding others; and (3) the trial court properly honored Rayner's knowing and voluntary waiver of lesser-included-offense instructions.
[1] A defendant may be convicted of robbery upon proof of aiding, abetting, or procuring the commission of the offense, even if they did not personally commit the robbery.
[2] Trial courts possess considerable discretion in allowing or disallowing testimony, and rulings on such matters will not be reversed absent a demonstration of reversible e…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Actual commission of the robbery by Rayner is not necessary as the proof was amply sufficient to establish the aiding, abetting or procuring the commission of the robbery by Rayner. This would sustain conviction of the substantive offense.”
Establishes that liability for robbery extends beyond direct perpetration to accomplice liability, satisfying the sufficiency-of-evidence challenge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRayner was charged jointly with McCall and Campbell for robbery but was tried separately. He was convicted by jury on two counts of robbery. The State…
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 Waiver Of Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Alexander Rayner appeals to this Court from a judgment and sentence entered against him by the Pinellas County Circuit Court consequent upon a verdict of guilt after a jury trial upon two counts of robbery.
Rayner was charged in an information jointly with one McCall and one Campbell, but was tried separately. Three points for reversal are raised on this appeal, but none has substance.
The first point has to do with the sufficiency of the evidence to convict Ray-ner, but more properly it is contended that the trial Court committed error “in refusing to grant appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal”. We have examined the entire record and the guilty verdict of the jury is amply justified by the evidence as a whole. Rayner suggests that the evidence did not sufficiently prove that he committed the robbery himself. Actual commission of the robbery by Rayner is not neces*75sary as the proof was amply sufficient to establish the aiding, abetting or procuring the commission of the robbery by Rayner. This would sustain conviction of the substantive offense. Jacobs v. State, Fla.App.1966, 184 So.2d 711; State v. Roby, Fla.1971, 246 So.2d 566.
The second point raised is that the trial Court erred in permitting one Lula Hicks to testify as a State witness. She was the mother of Leon Hicks, one of the victims of the robbery. There was no error here. Considerable discretion is reposed in the trial Judge who has the witnesses before him, in allowing or disallowing testimony of the type sought to be adduced through Mrs. Hicks. The preliminary proffer of her testimony was first made in the absence of the jury, after which the Court permitted one area of her testimony and excluded another. It would serve no good purpose to delineate the areas involved. Suffice it to say it has not been demonstrated that reversible error was committed in the Court’s ruling.
The last point involves failure of the trial Court to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses to that of robbery. But the insurmountable difficulty to Ray-ner here is that he not only waived the giving of such instruction on lesser included offenses but actually requested the Court affirmatively not to give such instruction, and this after the giving or non-giving of such instruction had been freely discussed in the Courtroom and after he had conferred about the matter not only with his own counsel but also privately with his parents by permission of the Court (although the defendant himself was 23 years old). After Rayner had affirmatively indicated to the Court to not have such instructions given, the Court, in order to “nail it down” asked Rayner “You want to go for broke and send just two verdict forms back in the jury room?” and Ray-ner answered “Yes”. In this respect the instant case differs significantly from Brown v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 296. See also Boykin v. State, Fla.1971, 257 So.2d 251, for an interesting discussion by the Supreme Court of “trial tactics” and “trial psychology”, as it may be applicable to the instant situation.
No error being made to appear, the judgment appealed is—
Affirmed.
LILES and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rayner v. State, 273 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1973)…McCAIN, Justice. We granted certiorari in this cause to review an apparent conflict between the decision below in Rayner v. State, 264 So. 2d 74 (Fla.App.2d 1972) and this Court’s earlier decision in State v. Washington, 268 So. 2d 901 (Fla.1972). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Fla.Const., Article V (1971), § (3)(b), (3), F.S.A. In the course of his trial on robbery charges, defendant in…
-
Rayner v. State, 286 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…PER CURIAM. The prior opinion of this court affirming the judgment of the lower court, reported in 264 So. 2d 74, was quashed by the Supreme Court in 273 So. 2d 759. In the lower court Rayner requested the trial judge not to give instructions on lesser included offenses, and the trial judge complied with his request. On appeal this court affirmed the judgment…
-
Salley v. State, 277 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…e of the two robbers involved, there is no doubt that the evidence supports a finding that he was an active participant. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are affirmed. See State v. Roby, Fla.1971, 246 So. 2d 566; Rayner v. State, Fla.App.1972, 264 So. 2d 74. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Roby, 246 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1971)
- Fisher v. Fisher, 184 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Brown v. State, 191 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Boykin v. State, 257 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1971)