Byrd v. State

503 So. 2d 451, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 698, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7123
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Byrd v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 531 So. 2d 1004
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 5, 1987·No. Nos. 86-1250, 86-1251·Published

Opinion

COWART, Judge.

Evidence of violence occurring after a completed robbery, when the victim attempts to retake his property or to apprehend the defendant, while not relevant of the proof of the elements of the robbery charge itself under Royal v. State, 490 So.2d 44 (Fla.1986) may, nevertheless, in a case such as this one, be admissible as part of the res gestae, as evidence of the intent of the defendant, as evidence of absence of mistake, as evidence of flight, or as evidence relevant to some other material factual issue, such as the victim’s opportunity to see and to identify the defendant as the perpetrator. All evidence tending to prove or disprove any material fact is admissible if not excluded by law.

AFFIRMED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.

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

Byrd v. State, 503 So. 2d 451, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 698, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7123 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

503 So. 2d 451 (Byrd v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Royal v. State
490 So. 2d 44 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)