MICHAEL DAVID ASKARY, 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.
Michael Askary was convicted by jury of three counts of aggravated assault and carrying a concealed firearm. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of evidence, the admissibility of polygraph expert testimony, and the propriety of multiple assault charges, all of which were rejected by the court. The appellate court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentence by striking an illegal probation provision.
The court held that: (1) substantial evidence supported all convictions and the jury's verdict would not be reversed; (2) the polygraph expert testimony was admissible because the parties had stipulated to the admission of the examination results, and the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination was not violated since the prosecution did not offer the defendant's own polygraph results; and (3) the multiple assault charges were properly brought because each assault constituted a separate transaction despite arising from the same incident, distinguishing the case from Yost v. State.
[1] Substantial evidence is sufficient to support a jury's verdict, and an appellate court will not reverse a judgment of conviction when the jury has resolved all conflicts…
[2] The results of polygraph examinations are admissible into evidence when the parties have stipulated to their admission.
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“Acting within its province, the jury having resolved all conflicts against the defendant this court will not reverse the judgment of conviction, all conflicts and reasonable inferences therefrom being resolved at this stage of the proceedings in support thereof.”
Establishes the standard of review for sufficiency of evidence on appeal—all conflicts and inferences are resolved in favor of the verdict.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Askary was tried by jury on four counts of aggravated assault and one count of carrying a concealed weapon. He was found guilty of three cou…
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 Admissibility Of Polygraph Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant was charged by information with four counts of aggravated assault and by separate information with carrying a concealed weapon. He was tried by jury and found guilty of three counts of aggravated assault and carrying a concealed firearm and sentenced to six months in the county jail on each of the assault counts (each sentence to run concurrently) and six months in the county jail followed by three years probation for the conviction of carrying a concealed weapon.
On appeal, appellant first contends that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the above convictions.
After a review of the record on appeal, we conclude that there was substantial evidence to support the verdict. Acting within its province, the jury having resolved all conflicts against the defendant this court will not reverse the judgment of conviction, all conflicts and reasonable inferences therefrom being resolved at this stage of the proceedings in support thereof. See Dreger v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So. 2d 431 and 2 Fla.Jur.Appeals § 344 (1963) and cases cited therein.
Appellant also contends that it was error to admit the testimony of Warren D. Holmes, a polygraph expert, since it pertained directly to the results of the polygraph examinations which are inadmissible as evidence.
The record reveals that defendant-appellant and the prosecution entered into a stipulation whereby the parties agreed that the results of the polygraph examinations of the state witnesses and of the defendant would be admitted into evidence for the jury’s consideration. Thus, the results of these examinations were admissible. See State v. Brown, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 532. Further, we cannot find merit in defendant’s argument that the introduction of the above results operated to deprive him of his privilege against self-incrimination as the results of defendant’s own polygraph test were not offered into evidence by the prosecution.
Lastly, appellant alleges it was error for the trial court to have denied his motion for new trial. Under this point defendant contends that since the four counts of aggravated assault alleged in the information arose out of the same incident, it therefore follows that only one charge of aggravated assault should have been filed against him. In support thereof, appellant cites Yost v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So. 2d 469. However, the case sub judice is distinguishable from Yost in that each assault in the instant case was in fact a separate transaction although all arose out of the same incident. Thus, this argument of appellant must fail.
Despite the fact that the point is not raised in appellant’s brief, we note that the sentence for carrying a concealed weapon is patently illegal in respect to the probation provision thereof and we hereby strike the period of probation therefrom. See Hutchins v. State, Fla.App.1973, 286 So. 2d 244.
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence herein appealed as modified is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. State, 299 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…esults of the polygraph examination of the defendant would be admitted into evidence for the jury’s consideration. Thus, the results of the examination were admissable. See State v. Brown, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 532; Askary v. State, Fla.App.1974, 294 So. 2d 33. Further, we find no merit in appellant’s argument that the trial judge erred in not permitting defense counsel to cross-examine the polygraph expert as to his qualifications for the stipulation provided that the defendant’s examination would be con…
-
State v. Cunningham, 324 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…te, Fla.1970, 241 So. 2d 390; Sullivan v. State, Fla.1974, 303 So. 2d 632. The results may be admitted into evidence upon stipulation between the State and defense counsel. State v. Drown, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 532; Ashary v. State, Fla.App.1974, 294 So. 2d 33; Moore v. State, Fla.App.1974, 299 So. 2d 119. The sole purpose of the stipulation entered into in the Overhead Door Company case related to permissible evidence in that cause and in no other. Therefore, we hold that the trial judge properly suppres…
-
State v. Askary, 330 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1976)…OVERTON, Chief Justice. This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal reported at 294 So. 2d 33 (Fla.App.3rd 1974). In its opinion the District Court held illegal an order of a trial court imposing three years probation with six months incarceration in the county jail as an initial condition, citing Hutchins v. State, 286 So. 2d 244 (Fla.App.3…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Yost v. State, 243 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Hutchins v. State, 286 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- State v. Brown, 177 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Dreger v. State, 228 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)