PAUL KICHINKO

v.

E. W. SCARBOROUGH, AS DIRECTOR OF THE STATE BEVERAGE DEPARTMENT

Citator

Cited By

• Tatzel v. State, 356 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1978)
  …of conduct as constituting more than one offense. In such instance, discretion is vested in the State to determine for which offense a prosecution will be made. McDowell v. State, 160 Fla. 588, 36 So. 2d 180 (1948); Campbell v. State, 155 Fla. 359, 20 So. 2d 127 (1944); McConnell v. State, 298 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). From a policy standpoint, even assuming the merit of appellant’s argument, it is not the province of this Court to vary the clear legislative intent expressed in a statute merely becaus…
• Fitzgerald v. State, 227 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
  …lines. Even without this comment from the bench the emphasized portion of the prosecutor’s statement requires us to reverse the judgment of conviction. A prosecutor may comment on the credibility of the accused (see Campbell v. State, 155 Fla. 359, 20 So. 2d 127 [1945]), but he “ * * * should always confine his argument to facts which are established by the record or which may be reasonably inferred from the facts established, and when he goes beyond that range he [*47] takes the chance that he may thereby…
• State v. Adjmi, 170 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
  …2d 812), it was held that this series of larcenies, from the same owner at different times and places, constituted separate and distinct offenses; that the “single impulse theory” had been rejected earlier in Campbell v. State, 155 Fla. 359, [*342] 20 So. 2d 127; and that at the trial (on the single count information) the state should have been required to specify “which one of the several transactions it elected to stand on”.3 The effect of the reversal of the judgment of conviction and the remand for new…