LEROY ALLEN, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting photographs of the deceased victim taken at the scene of the crime.
Leroy Allen was convicted of second-degree murder. He appealed, arguing that photographs of the victim taken at the crime scene were improperly admitt…
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 Prejudicial Effect cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Leroy Allen was indicted for first degree murder, tried by jury and found guilty of second degree murder. The trial court adjudicated Allen guilty of second degree murder, and sentenced him to ten years in the state penitentiary. The sole point raised on appeal is that the court erred in admitting, over defense counsel’s objection, photographs of the deceased victim, taken at the scene of the crime.
Defendant Allen contends that the photographs were gruesome, gory, not relevant to any facts in issue, and prejudicial to his right to a fair and impartial trial. We have examined the copies of the photographs provided in the record on appeal, and we are of the opinion that the trial court did not err in admitting them into evidence.
As the Florida Supreme Court held in State v. Wright, 265 So. 2d 361, 362 (Fla.1972), photographs taken at the scene of a crime, which are alleged to be gruesome and inflammatory, will be admissible into evidence if they are relevant to any issue required to be proven in a case; relevancy is to be determined in the normal manner, without regard to any special characterization of the proffered evidence. The admissibility of photographs as evidence is a matter within the broad discretion of the trial court, and a ruling thereon will not be disturbed except when shown to be clearly abusive or patently erroneous under the circumstances revealed by the record. Belger v. State, 171 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); Reed v. State, 224 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). See also, Garmise v. State, 311 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975), and Swan v. State, 322 So. 2d 485, 487 (Fla.1975).
The record on appeal in this case demonstrates that the photographs met the test of relevancy, and that they were not of such a nature as to be prejudicial or inflammatory.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. State, 436 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1983)…ppeal unless there is a showing of clear abuse. Courtney v. State, 358 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 365 So. 2d 710 (Fla.1978); Phillips v. State, 351 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 834 (Fla.1978); Allen v. State, 340 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Reed v. State, 224 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). No such abuse has been demonstrated in the instant case. This Court has held on numerous occasions that photographs will be admissible into evidence “if relevant to any issue req…
-
Ronny A. Zamora v. State, 361 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ding the death of the victim, including the position in which the body was found. The admission into evidence of photographs of a deceased victim is within 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 te…
-
Stanley v. State, 357 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…e, 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 1229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The fourth point is that the court erred in adjudicating Stanley guilty of first degree murder, robbery and kidnapping. We find this point to be without merit as the jury verdic…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Swan v. State, 322 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 1975)
- Garmise v. State, 311 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- State v. Wright, 265 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1972)
- Grady Allen Belger v. State, 171 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Reed v. State, 224 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)