VICTOR S. OLSEN, 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.
Victor Olsen, a former Pensacola city patrolman, was convicted of receiving stolen oxygen and acetylene tanks knowing them to have been stolen. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction despite finding trial court error in admitting character evidence, holding the error was harmless in light of overwhelming evidence of guilt.
The trial court correctly refused the requested jury instructions regarding witness immunity because they were abstract propositions unsupported by factual proof. Although the admission of specific acts of bad conduct in rebuttal to character evidence was erroneous, the error was harmless because overwhelming evidence of guilt left no room for reasonable doubt.
“although it is assigned as error, we hold that the trial court correctly refused the requested charges which pertained to the law under F.S. § 932.29, F.S.Á., because these charges would have been merely abstract propositions of law under the facts and circumstances of this case.”
The court's rationale for rejecting jury instructions on witness immunity when no evidence supports the theory.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOlsen and two co-defendants (Coulter and Roberts) were charged with larceny of oxygen and acetylene tanks. Coulter pleaded guilty, and Roberts was als…
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 Witness Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Justice.
Appellant, a former city patrolman on the Pensacola city police force, was .informed against below in two counts, the first count charging him, as well as two co-defendants, Coulter and Roberts, with larceny of an oxygen tank and an acetylene tank, and the second count charging appellant with receiving the same tanks, knowing them to have been stolen. A jury found appellant guilty as charged on the second count, and judgment was entered on this verdict. Coulter pleaded guilty, and Roberts, tried with appellant, was also convicted.
Witnesses against appellant included his co-defendant Coulter, and one Kla-patch, who had pleaded guilty to several felonies. Defense counsel attacked the credibility of' these witnesses “upon the theory that they had sought, and probably obtained, immunity, or leniency in consideration of their services to the State” but this remained only a theory, since the record affords no proof of it. Thus, although it is assigned as error, we hold that the trial court correctly refused the requested charges which pertained to the law under F.S. § 932.29, F.S.Á., because these charges would have been merely abstract propositions of law under the facts and circumstances of this case. The charge given was adequate.
Appellant further contends that it was error for the trial court to admit, in rebuttal of proof of his good character, which he had placed in issue, evidence of specific acts of bad conduct, Nelson v. State, 32 Fla. 244, 13 So. 361; Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113, 9 So. 835; Roberson v. State, 40 Fla. 509, 24 So. 474; Gafford v. State, 79 Fla. 581, 84 So. 602; Cornelius v. State, Fla., 49 So. 2d 332; 32 C.J.S., Evidence § 436, p. 68. We agree that the ad mission-complained of was error, but we have studied the record at length, and find that the evidence, with particular reference to facts admitted by appellant himself, leaves no room for reasonable doubt that appellant received and aided in the concealment of the property in question, knowing it to have been stolen, and that admission of the improper rebuttal evidence was not prejudicial or harmful to the substantial rights of the accused. The case must be affirmed upon the authority of Cornelius v. State, supra, 49 So. 2d 332.
Affirmed.
TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice, SE-BRING, J., and PATTERSON, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Warnock v. State, 284 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)…ued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. Olsen v. State (Fla.1954), 75 So. 2d 281; Pruitt v. State (Fla.App.1967), 194 So. 2d 656; Branam v. State (Fla.App.1972), 265 So. 2d 555. RAWLS, C. J., WIGGINTON, J., and DREW, Associate Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113 (Fla. 1891)
- Roberson v. State, 40 Fla. 509 (Fla. 1898)
- Cornelius v. State, 49 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1950)
- Nelson v. State, 32 Fla. 244 (Fla. 1893)
- Gafford v. State, 79 Fla. 581 (Fla. 1920)