Alexander v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Alexander v. State

326 So. 2d 456, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14330

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 13, 1976

DocketNo. 75-325

StatusPublished

This text of 326 So. 2d 456 (Alexander v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexander v. State, 326 So. 2d 456, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14330 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

OWEN, Judge.

Using a handgun, appellant shot and killed one person and wounded another. As a result he was convicted on a two-count information of (1) second degree murder, and (2) assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree.

Appellant raised as a defense insanity at the time of the offense, and in support thereof offered evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to his sanity. Appellant contends that the State’s evidence was not sufficient to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt appellant’s sanity at the time of the offense. The evidence on this issue was in conflict and presented an issue for the jury. Our review of the record satisfies us that there was sufficient competent evidence to support the jury’s verdict. French v. State, 266 So.2d 51 (3rd DCA Fla.1972).

Appellant’s remaining points are also without merit and do not require extended discussion. It was not error for the court to fail to declare a mistrial on its own motion because of an improper comment by the prosecutor during the closing argument. Neither was it error for the court to refuse defendant’s requested instruction relating to the defense of insanity, which though a correct statement of the [457]*457law, was fully covered by the Standard Jury Instruction given by the court on that subj ect.

The judgment and sentences are severally affirmed.

WALDEN, C. J., and MAGER, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OWEN, Judge.

Using a handgun, appellant shot and killed one person and wounded another. As a result he was convicted on a two-count information of (1) second degree murder, and (2) assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree.

Appellant raised as a defense insanity at the time of the offense, and in support thereof offered evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to his sanity. Appellant contends that the State’s evidence was not sufficient to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt appellant’s sanity at the time of the offense. The evidence on this issue was in conflict and presented an issue for the jury. Our review of the record satisfies us that there was sufficient competent evidence to support the jury’s verdict. French v. State, 266 So.2d 51 (3rd DCA Fla.1972).

Appellant’s remaining points are also without merit and do not require extended discussion. It was not error for the court to fail to declare a mistrial on its own motion because of an improper comment by the prosecutor during the closing argument. Neither was it error for the court to refuse defendant’s requested instruction relating to the defense of insanity, which though a correct statement of the [457]*457law, was fully covered by the Standard Jury Instruction given by the court on that subj ect.

The judgment and sentences are severally affirmed.

WALDEN, C. J., and MAGER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 So. 2d 456, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-state-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack