LLOYD GARMISE, 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.
Lloyd Garmise appeals his first-degree murder conviction and sentence, challenging the denial of his motion for directed verdict, the admission of crime scene photographs, and the trial court's refusal to give a jury instruction regarding the weight of his self-defense testimony. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error.
The trial court did not err in denying the motion for directed verdict because substantial and sufficient competent evidence supported the jury verdict. The photographs were admissible because they were relevant to illustrate testimony and assist the jury. The requested jury instruction was properly denied because it was an inaccurate statement of law, being incomplete and misleading where contrary evidence existed at trial.
[1] A motion for judgment of acquittal should not be granted unless it is apparent that no legally sufficient evidence has been submitted upon which the jury could legally fi…
[2] When a defendant moves for a directed verdict of acquittal, he admits all facts in evidence adduced and every conclusion favorable to the State fairly and reasonably infe…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“A motion for judgment of acquittal should not be granted unless it is apparent that no legally sufficient evidence has been submitted upon which the jury could legally find a verdict of guilty.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing denial of directed verdict motions; requires substantial evidence supporting conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLloyd Garmise was convicted of first-degree murder pursuant to a jury verdict on an information. At trial, the defendant presented evidence of self-de…
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 Photographic Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Lloyd Garmise, seeks review of a conviction for first degree murder and sentence entered pursuant to a jury verdict and upon an information charging same.
The defendant presents several points on appeal for our consideration. First, he contends that the court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal at the conclusion of all of the evidence. We note at the outset that the defendant is not challenging the weight and sufficiency of the evidence as to the jury verdict. When a defendant moves for a directed verdict of acquittal, he admits all facts in evidence adduced and every conclusion favorable to the State fairly and reasonably inferable therefrom. Lett v. State, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 568, 569; Devlin v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 82. A motion for judgment of acquittal should not be granted unless it is apparent that no legally sufficient evidence has been submitted upon which the jury could legally find a verdict of guilty. Shifrin v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 18. See also, Holland v. State, 1937, 129 Fla. 363, 176 So. 169; Adams v. State, 1939, 138 Fla. 206, 189 So. 392. We find that there was substantial and sufficient competent evidence presented to support the denial by the trial court of the defendant’s motion for acquittal.
The defendant’s second point is that the court erred in admitting into evidence a number of color photographs of the body of the deceased which, the defendant argues, were inflammatory, highly prejudicial and of no probative value. As a general rule, the admissibility of photographic evidence is within the broad discretion of the trial judge. The discretion will not be disturbed by an appellate court unless clearly abusive or patently in error. Reed v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So. 2d 364. Photographs taken at the scene of the crime are admissible in evidence if they tend to illustrate or explain the testimony of a witness1 or may be of assistance to the jury in understanding the testimony. Belger v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 171 So. 2d 574. The ultimate test in judging admissibility is one of relevancy. Wilkins v. State, Fla.1963, 155 So. 2d 129. “. (W)hen photographs are otherwise relevant they will not be held incompetent merely because they tend to prejudice the jury.” Leach v. State, Fla.1961, 132 So. 2d 329, 331. In the instant case the photographs were relevant for the jury’s consideration and hence, admissible.
The third point raised by the defendant is that the court erred in denying the defendant’s requested jury instructions regarding the weight to be given defendant’s own testimony as to self defense. The defendant requested the following charge:
“If the only version of the manner in which the incident occurred is the version given by the Defendant, then the Jury must accept the Defendant’s version and give great weight to it. This is especially so if there is no evidence to contradict the Defendant’s evidence.”
There is no error in refusing an instruction which implies and is calculated to impress the jury with the view that there is no testimony as to a certain phase of the case, when the record shows that there was such testimony. Barker v. State, 1898, 40 Fla. 178, 24 So. 69. In the instant case there was such evidence, albeit mainly circumstantial. Incomplete and/or misleading instructions are properly denied. Wells v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 270 So. 2d 399; Hinchen v. State, Fla.App.1974, 297 So. 2d 341. The requested instruction, being an inaccurate statement of the law, was properly denied.
The remaining points raised by the defendant are without merit.
Therefore, no reversible error having been shown, the conviction and sentence appealed are hereby affirmed.
. See Pressley v. State, Fla.App.1972, 261 So. 2d 522, citing Kitchen v. State, Fla.1956, 89 So. 2d 667 and Grant v. State, Fla.1965, 171 So. 2d 361.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (36 total)
-
Ronny A. Zamora v. State, 361 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…in the discretion of the trial judge. Swan v. State, 322 So. 2d 485 (Fla.1975); Allen v. State, 340 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Relevancy, of course, is the controlling factor in the admission or denial of photographic evidence. Garmise v. State, 311 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Sub judice, the photographs were relevant in that they corroborated the testimony of certain witnesses, including the Assistant Medical Examiner of Dade County, as to the cause of death, the location and characteristics of the w…
-
Stanley v. State, 357 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ination, is mere conjecture. The third point relates to the admission into evidence of color photographs of the deceased victim. We find that their relevancy supported their admission. Bauldree v. State, 284 So. 2d 196 (Fla.1973); Garmise v. State, 311 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Johnson v. State, supra. Stanley has failed to demonstrate that the admission of the photographs constituted an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. Allen v. State, 340 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Mack v. State, 346 So. 2d 1…
-
T.J.T. v. State, 460 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…satisfied. Ryals v. State, supra; Chaudoin v. State, supra. When a defendant moves for a judgment of acquittal he admits all facts in the evidence adduced and every conclusion favorable to the state reasonably inferable therefrom. Garmise v. State, 311 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 998, 97 S.Ct. 524, 50 L.Ed.2d 608 (1976). Applying to the instant case the rule that a motion for judgment of acquittal should not be granted unless it is apparent that no legally sufficient evidence has be…
Previewing 3 of 36 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (15 total)
- Leach v. State, 132 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1961)
- Grant v. State, 171 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1965)
- Holland v. State, 129 Fla. 363 (Fla. 1937)
- Grady Allen Belger v. State, 171 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Barker v. State, 40 Fla. 178 (Fla. 1898)
- Shifrin v. State, 210 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Kitchen v. State, 89 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 1956)
- Pressley v. State, 261 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Wells v. State, 270 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Devlin v. State, 175 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)