Duval v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Duval v. State

190 So. 2d 613, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 4940

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 11, 1966

DocketNo. 65-1010

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 190 So. 2d 613 (Duval 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

Duval v. State, 190 So. 2d 613, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 4940 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals a judgment and sentence which were entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of buying, receiving and concealing stolen goods. See Fla.Stat., § 811.16, F.S.A. He has presented two points.

The first point urges that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because the allegedly stolen property was not sufficiently identified. A review of the record convinces us that appellant’s view of the evidence is not substantiated. See Guarino v. State, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 650.

Appellant’s second point urges error upon the theory that the prosecuting attorney made a remark which could have been interpreted as a comment upon defendant’s failure to testify. See Fla.Stat., § 918.09, F.S.A. The remark does not lend itself to the connotation given by the appellant under any reasonable view of the circumstances. Therefore, reversal is denied under the second point upon authority of Hand v. State, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 364, 367.

Affirmed.

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