JAMES LEROY ROLLE, 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.
James Leroy Rolle was convicted of aggravated assault and robbery by jury verdict. On appeal, Rolle challenged the prosecutor's questioning tactics, the sufficiency of evidence for the robbery conviction, and the prejudicial effect of a police dog's presence in the courtroom and its newspaper photograph. The court affirmed the conviction on all grounds.
The court held that the prosecutor's questioning without impeachment constituted at most harmless error; sufficient evidence supported the robbery conviction because the victim's fear of great bodily harm was adequately established; and neither the dog's courtroom presence nor the newspaper photograph warranted reversal, as the jury was polled and only two jurors saw the photograph and stated they were not influenced.
[1] A prosecutor may ask questions that lay the foundation for impeachment, even if no further impeachment is attempted, and any resulting error may be considered harmless.
[2] The element of putting a victim in fear of great bodily harm for robbery is satisfied when the victim relinquishes property due to a reasonable belief that the perpetrato…
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“he also has the responsibility to ensure that the accused has a fair and impartial trial”
Establishes the prosecutor's dual duty to prosecute vigorously while ensuring fairness
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRolle was charged with aggravated assault and robbery and tried before a jury, resulting in conviction on both counts. During trial, the prosecutor as…
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 Elements Of Robbery cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant-appellant, James Leroy Rolle, was charged by information with aggravated assault and robbery and his trial before a jury resulted in a conviction on both counts.
The first point raised on appeal is directed to alleged prejudicial error resulting from the prosecutor’s questioning of defendant concerning admissions purportedly made by him but which were denied and not proven by impeachment of defendant through the testimony of other witnesses. While a representative of the State Attorney’s office must vigorously perform all his functions as a prosecutor, he also has the responsibility to ensure that the accused has a fair and impartial trial. Marsh v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 202 So.2d 222; Gonzalez v. State, Fla.App. 1957, 97 So.2d 127. Bart of the prosecutor’s responsibility is to refrain from striking the “foul blows” contemplated by the United States Supreme Court in Berger v. U. S., 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314. At all times a prosecutor cannot overstep the bounds of propriety and fairness and he must not resort to improper methods to produce a wrongful conviction. Deas v. State, 119 Fla. 839, 161 So, 729 (1935); Berger, supra. In the instant case the prosecutor did not violate the above guidelines by asking questions which laid the foundation for impeachment where no further attempt to impeach was made. If any error resulted from this conduct it was merely harmless error. Landrum v. State, 79 Fla. 189, 84 So. 535 (1920).
Defendant’s next point on appeal questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict of guilty to the offense of robbery. One element of the robbery statute, F.S. § 813.011, F.S.A. requires that the robber’s victim be put in fear of great bodily harm. Croft v. State, 117 Fla. 832, 158 So. 454 (1935); Martin v. State, 100 Fla. 16, 129 So. 112 (1930); Stephens v. State, 92 Fla. 43, 109 So. 303 (1926). In the case sub judice this element of the crime was adequately met when the victim stated during the trial: “I assumed he had a revolver or a gun. So I wasn’t going to take any chances.” Additional evidence presented at trial showed that defendant had a weapon in his possession when he was apprehended by the police. From this the jury could infer that the victim relinquished the money to the robber to prevent himself from being shot.
The remaining points raised by defendant concern the in court presence of the police dog used to capture defendant and a, photograph of the dog taken in court which appeared in a local newspaper. Defendant urges that allowing the dog into the courtroom created sympathy for the police officer who was testifying and gave an aura of credence to the testimony of the officer. Defendant also contends that the photograph of the dog and it’s caption in the Miami Herald prejudiced the jury and made it impossible for them to make a fair determination of the case.
We find these remaining arguments concerning the dog and the newspaper publicity to be without merit. The dog’s presence in the courtroom did not create the reaction which defendant would have us believe. Further, the jury was polled following the appearance of the photograph and it’s caption in the Miami Herald and only two jurors either saw the picture or read the caption and they stated they were not influenced to the extent that they could not render a fair and impartial verdict. Therefore, neither the presence of the dog in the courtroom nor the photograph which *543was published in the newspaper with a caption will warrant a reversal.
. ,. , . , , . , Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed should be and is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1982)…ext, the prosecutor obviously said the defendant’s name when he meant to say Virginia Polk. He immediately corrected the error. This is not an example of resort to improper methods to obtain convictions as suggested by the defendant. Rolle v. State, 268 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). The trial court acted within its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for mistrial. Johnsen v. State, 332 So. 2d 69 (Fla.1976). At the close of the state’s case the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal on the two…
-
Brown v. State, 397 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…ty which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another, by force, violence, assault, or putting in fear.” (emphasis added). [*1155] The fear contemplated by the statute is the fear of death or great bodily harm. Rolle v. State, 268 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). To sustain a conviction for robbery, it is not necessary to show that actual violence was used, nor is it required that the victim be placed in actual fear. Montsdoca v. State, 84 Fla. 82, 93 So. 157 (Fla.1922). If the circumstan…
-
Cliett v. State, 951 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…r property which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another, by force, violence, assault, or putting in fear.” (emphasis added). The fear contemplated by the statute is the fear of death or great bodily harm. Rolle v. State, 268 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). To sustain a conviction for robbery, it is not necessary to show that actual violence was used, nor is it required that the victim be placed in actual fear. Montsdoca v. State, 84 Fla. 82, 93 So. 157 (Fla.1922). If the circumstan…
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
- Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1935)
- Town of Boynton v. State, 100 Fla. 16 (Fla. 1930)
- Deas v. State, 119 Fla. 839 (Fla. 1935)
- Elbert Croft v. State, 117 Fla. 832 (Fla. 1935)
- Frand Landrum v. State, 79 Fla. 189 (Fla. 1920)
- Stephens v. State, 92 Fla. 43 (Fla. 1926)
- Gonzalez v. State, 97 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)
- Marsh v. State, 202 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)