LEON J. NOEL, JR., 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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting photographs of the victim and that the failure to reinstruct the jury on justifiable and excusable homicide was not fundamental error.
Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred by admitting photographs of the victim and by failing to r…
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 Justifiable Homicide cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Leon J. Noel, Jr., was charged, tried by jury, and found guilty of second-degree murder of his wife. The trial court sentenced appellant to six months to fifteen years in the state penitentiary.
Appellant raises two points on this timely appeal. The first point is whether the trial court erred in permitting the state to introduce into evidence in its case in chief photographs of the victim taken at the medical examiner’s office. We find that the photographs were relevant and material to prove the state’s case. The appellant had given certain pretrial statements to the investigating officer to the effect that he had shot his wife in self-defense. See State v. Wright, Fla.1972, 265 So. 2d 361. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s ruling as to point one.
As to point two, appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to rein- struct the jury, after they had begun to deliberate, on the definitions of justifiable and excusable homicide, when the jury requested the trial court to reinstruct on second-degree murder, third-degree murder and manslaughter. Appellant did not properly present this point for appellate review. Appellant did not request that the jury be reinstructed on the definition of justifiable and excusable homicide nor did he object to the trial court’s failure to so reinstruct. Therefore, the trial court’s failure to reinstruct, not being a fundamental error, was not reviewable on appeal. Jackson v. State, Fla.App.4th, 1975, 207 So. 2d 232. Having carefully examined point two we also affirm the trial court’s ruling on that point. See, also, DeLaine v. State, Fla. 1972, 262 So. 2d 655, and State v. Wilson, Fla.1973, 276 So. 2d 45.
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are
Affirmed.
BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- DeLAINE v. State, 262 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1972)
- State v. Wright, 265 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1972)
- State v. Wilson, 276 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1973)