JERRY DWIGHT TROLINGER, 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.
Trolinger appealed his life sentence for second-degree murder, challenging the admission of undisclosed witness testimony, the admission of his confession without explicit findings of voluntariness and waiver, and the trial court's handling of expert testimony. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error.
The trial court did not err on any issue. The hearing regarding the undisclosed witness complied with applicable law. The trial judge's findings regarding the reading of rights and the defendant's understanding, combined with the record, established the confession's voluntariness with unmistakable clarity. Expert testimony is persuasive but not conclusive; juries remain free to assess its credibility and weight.
[1] A trial court complies with discovery rules when it conducts an adequate inquiry into circumstances surrounding the late disclosure of a witness and allows the defense to…
[2] A trial court's denial of a motion to suppress a confession is proper when the record clearly indicates that the defendant was informed of their rights, understood them,…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The court then granted defense counsel permission to talk with the witness and told him that if he needed to talk with other witnesses he could report this to the court.”
Establishes that the trial court provided adequate procedural safeguards regarding the undisclosed witness by allowing defense preparation time and offering opportunities for further relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTrolinger was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. At trial, a witness whose name had not been provided to the defens…
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 Constitutional Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
In this appeal from a judgment and sentence to life imprisonment for second degree murder, Trolinger first contends that the lower court erred in admitting the testimony of a witness whose name had not been furnished to the defense pursuant to Rule 3.220, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A. The record shows that the trial court held a hearing outside the presence of the jury and made adequate inquiry into all surrounding circumstances as required by Richardson v. State, Fla.1971, 246 So. 2d 771. The court then granted defense counsel permission to talk with the witness and told him that if he needed to talk with other witnesses he could report this to the court. Defense counsel interviewed the witness, but made no request to talk with other witnesses, nor did he request a continuance. The inquiry made here adequately complied with the law as stated in Richardson. Spradley v. State, Fla. 1974, 293 So. 2d 697. See Taylor v. State, Fla.App.lst, 1974, 292 So. 2d 375.
Trolinger next contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his confession without a specific finding of voluntariness and without a clear and convincing showing that he had knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional rights.
Unlike the situation in McDole v. State, Fla.1973, 283 So. 2d 553; Smith v. State, Fla.App.3d, 1974, 288 So. 2d 522, and Graham v. State, Fla.App.3d 1974, 292 So. 2d 373, where the court merely stated that the motion to suppress the confession was denied, the trial judge in the case sub judice stated that Trolinger’s rights were read to him, he was asked if he understood, and he stated that he did. The judge’s conclusion that the confession was voluntary, therefore, appears from the record with unmistakable clarity. Cf. McDole, supra; Sims v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 538, 87 S.Ct. 639, 17 L.Ed.2d 593.
We have carefully examined the record and find that the trial court’s conclusion that Trolinger’s statements were voluntarily made is amply supported by the record.
Trolinger’s third point is without merit. Expert testimony, though persuasive, is not conclusive or binding on the jury, and the jury is free to determine the credibility and to decide the weight to be ascribed. Shaw v. Puleo, Fla. 1964, 159 So. 2d 641; Taylor v. Posey, Fla.App.1st 1973, 282 So. 2d 118.
The judgment and sentence appealed are
Affirmed.
BOARDMAN and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Anton Kevin Peterson v. State, 382 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1980)…2d 188 (Fla.lst DCA 1978); Pitts v. State, 335 So. 2d 367 (Fla.lst DCA 1976); Leigh v. State, 312 So. 2d 464 (Fla.lst DCA 1975); Husk v. State, 305 So. 2d 19 (Fla.lst DCA 1974); Bunch v. State, 303 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Trolinger v. State, 300 So. 2d 310 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); Hester v. State, 357 So. 2d 481 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Phelps v. State, 353 So. 2d 1221 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Von Horn v. State, 334 So. 2d 43 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Walker v. State, 319 So. 2d 642 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Walker v. State, 311 So.…
-
Herman v. State, 396 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…he expert’s testimony that he could not say one way or the other whether the shotgun admitted was the murder weapon, was not conclusive or binding on the jury which was free to determine credibility and weight to be ascribed. See Trolinger v. State, 300 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 310 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1975). Under those circumstances, the jury would be entitled to consider the shotgun and give whatever weight was due in light of the expert’s testimony. See Smith v. State, 235 Ga. 620, 221 S.E…
-
Dep't OF Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Bogorff, 35 So. 3d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…and all the other evidence in the case”); Shaw v. Puleo, 159 So. 2d 641, 644 (Fla.1964), modified on other grounds, Griffis v. Hill, 230 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1969); Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Shelton, 155 Fla. 586, 21 So. 2d 39 (1945). . Trolinger v. State, 300 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 310 So. 2d 740 (Fla.1975). . Orlando Sports Stadium Inc. v. State ex rel. Powell, 262 So. 2d 881, 884 (Fla.1972). . See also Penn. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 43 S.Ct. 158, 67 L.Ed. 322 (1922) (regulatory act…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Sims v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1967)
- Shaw v. Puleo, 159 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1964)
- McDOLE v. State, 283 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1973)
- Spradley v. State, 293 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1974)
- Taylor v. State, 292 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Reba Louise Smith v. State, 288 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Koerner v. State, 292 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Trolinger v. State, 296 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)