E.J.K. v. State

508 So. 2d 422, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1205, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8113
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 8, 1987·No. No. 86-249·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

FRANK, Judge.

Although the record in this matter may be susceptible of a determination that E.J.K. acted in self-defense, we are precluded from passing upon the single question before us whether the trial court erred in finding the evidence sufficient to convict E.J.K. of aggravated battery. The record does not disclose either a motion for judgment of acquittal or a motion for a new trial. Either motion would have accorded the trial court an opportunity to test the sufficiency of the evidence and preserved the contention for appellate consideration. Pursuant to State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974), however, we are foreclosed from reviewing the evidence. See also Crenshaw v. State, 490 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.

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

E.J.K. v. State, 508 So. 2d 422, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1205, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8113 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

508 So. 2d 422 (E.J.K. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

D.B. v. State
779 So. 2d 395 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Johnson v. Singletary
883 F. Supp. 1535 (M.D. Florida, 1995)
Stanley v. State
626 So. 2d 1004 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Ogletree v. State
525 So. 2d 967 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)