WILLIAM RALPH LUTINS
v.
STATE
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.
William Ralph Lutins was convicted of knowingly buying and receiving stolen property. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of evidence, the trial court's jury charge, and the court's permission for the court reporter to read stenographic notes of multiple witnesses when the jury had requested only one witness's testimony. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support conviction, that there was no reversible error in the jury charge, and that the trial court's decision to permit the court reporter to read the stenographic notes was within the trial court's sound judicial discretion and showed no abuse of discretion.
“The evidence has been examined and found sufficient.”
Court's holding on the sufficiency of evidence challenge, rejecting the appellant's first argument.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLutins was convicted of knowingly buying and receiving stolen property. During jury deliberations, the jury returned to the courtroom and requested th…
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 Judicial Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
To judgment of conviction of the offense of knowingly buying and receiving stolen property, defendant sued out writ of error.
Plaintiff in error challenges the sufficiency of the evidence: The evidence has been examined and found sufficient.
Plaintiff in error challenges the correctness of the trial court’s charge to the jury. There was no objection to the charge, no reference to same in motion for new trial and no assignment of error based thereon. While we may properly ignore the question presented, we have considered the entire charge as reflected by the transcript and find no reversible error therein.
The action of the court in permitting the court reporter to read to the jury, at the request of the jury made after the case had been submitted and when the jury returned to the court room and made such request, the stenographic notes reflecting the testimony given by certain witnesses when the jury had asked for the reading of the testimony of only one witness is also challenged.
A similar question was presented in the case of Barton v. State, 72 Fla. 408, 73 Sou. 230.
On authority of the opinion and judgment in that case, we hold that the matter complained of was one to be disposed of by the exercise of the sound judicial discretion of the trial court. No abuse of discretion having been made to appear, no reversible error is shown.
On consideration of the entire record, we find no reversible error. So the judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
*290Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Thomas, J., concur.
Chapman, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McALLISTER Hotel, Inc. v. Porte, 123 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1959)…Wright v. Illinois & Mississippi Telegraph Company, 20 Iowa 195, 210, quoted with approval by this Court in Marks v. State Road Department. Fla.1954, 69 So. 2d 771, 774, 775. . Florida Statutes, Section 919.05 (1957), F.S.A.; Lutins v. State, 1940, 142 Fla. 288, 194 So. 803; Nelson v. State, 1941, 148 Fla. 338, 4 So. 2d 375; Brown v. State, 1943, 152 Fla. 508, 12 So. 2d 292; Bates v. State, Fla.App.1958, 102 So. 2d 826 (certiorari denied Fla.1958, 100 So. 2d 199). . An intelligent answer to the propositio…1 / 2
-
Bates v. State, 102 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)…h a fundamental character as to warrant our consideration in the absence of being properly preserved. Moreover, while the statute contains mandatory words, it must be construed as the Supreme Court has heretofore construed it (Lutins v. State, 1940, 142 Fla. 288, 194 So. 803; Nelson v. State, 1941, 148 Fla. 338, 4 So. 2d 375; Brown v. State, 1943, 152 Fla. 508, 12 So. 2d 292) to vest in the trial court’s discretion as to the extent and circumstances in which it may be employed. Furr v. State, 1942, 152 Fla.…
-
Reilly v. State, 212 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…uctions and rereading the typed charges to the jury. We find that the trial judge properly gave the instructions to the jury in compliance with Fla.Stat. § 918.10, F.S.A., and that no error was committed. Fla.Stat. § 919.05, F.S.A., Lutins v. State, 142 Fla. 288, 194 So. 803 (1940); Bates v. State, Fla.App. 1958, 102 So. 2d 826. The defendant also claims that the trial court committed reversible error by sentencing the defendant to life imprisonment because such a sentence for his first offense violates th…
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
- Spanish v. State, 72 Fla. 420 (Fla. 1916)
- Barton v. State, 72 Fla. 408 (Fla. 1916)