ANTHONY C. KALLAS, 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.
The court held that the defendant's conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm during a criminal offense was valid and that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination.
The defendant was indicted for several offenses, including breaking and entering, robbery, false imprisonment, and unlawful possession of a firearm du…
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 Unlawful Possession Of A Firearm While Engaged In A Criminal Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant was indicted for (1) breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit a felony, (2) two counts of robbery, (3) two counts of false imprisonment, and (4) unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense. He was tried by a jury and found guilty on all counts except one count of robbery.
On appeal, defendant-appellant alleges that his conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of a weapon while engaged in a criminal offense are void as being for conduct not defined as a crime. We find this contention clearly erroneous as F.S. § 790.07 F.S.A. defines as a crime the possession of a weapon while one is engaged in a crime.
Defendant-appellant also argues that the trial court improperly denied his right to cross-examination by refusing to allow the chief prosecution witness to be questioned concerning an alleged agreement with defendant not to testify in exchange for a large sum of money. We cannot agree.
A search of the record reflects that counsel for the defense in fact did question the chief prosecution witness as follows: “Didn’t you make a phone call to Mr. Hogan telling him that if he would get your $25,000 from them, you’d forget the whole thing?” In addition, the witness was asked whether or not he had received $6,000 from the defendants and whether he gave one Wallach $1,600 to cover his (Wallach’s) civil damages. In light of the above, this argument must fail.
We also considered appellant’s remaining points and found that either they were not objected to during the course of the trial or they were without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hendricks v. State, 360 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…re into reluctance on the part of the victim to testify at the trial of this cause, which Hendricks contends was properly admissible as relating to the credibility of the witness, relying on Ward v. Ochoa, 284 So. 2d 385 (Fla.1973); Kallas v. State, 284 So. 2d 421 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); McDuffie v. State, 341 So. 2d 840 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). We must reject this contention under the facts of the instant case. In the authorities relied upon there was a showing that the reluctance of the witnesses to testify were situa…
-
Kallas v. State, 292 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1974)…Certiorari denied. 284 So. 2d 421. ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…