Kancey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kancey v. State

305 So. 2d 816, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7471

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 31, 1974

DocketNo. 74-758

StatusPublished

This text of 305 So. 2d 816 (Kancey 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

Kancey v. State, 305 So. 2d 816, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7471 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The jury found the appellant guilty of murder in the second degree. After adjudication and sentence, he brought this appeal. Two points for reversal are presented. The first claims that the judge [817]*817erred in denying defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. The evidence tested upon the criteria set forth in Holland v. State, 129 Fla. 363, 176 So. 169 (1937) and Weldon v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 287 So.2d 133 was sufficient to withstand the motion. We further find the evidence sufficient to support the verdict.

The second point claims that the appellant is entitled to a new trial because of claimed prejudicial comments during trial by the prosecuting attorney. We hold that the statements complained of are not prejudicial comments.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The jury found the appellant guilty of murder in the second degree. After adjudication and sentence, he brought this appeal. Two points for reversal are presented. The first claims that the judge [817]*817erred in denying defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. The evidence tested upon the criteria set forth in Holland v. State, 129 Fla. 363, 176 So. 169 (1937) and Weldon v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 287 So.2d 133 was sufficient to withstand the motion. We further find the evidence sufficient to support the verdict.

The second point claims that the appellant is entitled to a new trial because of claimed prejudicial comments during trial by the prosecuting attorney. We hold that the statements complained of are not prejudicial comments.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 So. 2d 816, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kancey-v-state-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack