Kimble v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kimble v. State

208 So. 2d 471, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5770

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 26, 1968

DocketNo. J-331

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 208 So. 2d 471 (Kimble 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

Kimble v. State, 208 So. 2d 471, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5770 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Kimble, seeks review of his conviction, after jury trial, for the offense of assaulting a police officer with intent to do violence. As. a defense in the trial court Kimble attempted to establish that the police officer did not inform him that he was being arrested and that excessive force was used by the police officer in making the arrest before he, Kimble, resisted the arrest by violence. We note from the transcript of testimony that there was conflict in the testimony of the witnesses in this regard which was up to the jury to weigh and resolve.

The sole point argued as error on this appeal deals with the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. The record on appeal reflects that the trial judge was not given the opportunity to rule on this alleged error by a motion for new trial. Therefore, we are precluded on this appeal from considering error based on the [472]*472insufficiency of the evidence. Gilbert v. State, 148 Fla. 293, 4 So.2d 330 (1941); Smith v. State, 194 So.2d 310 (Fla.App.1st, 1967). Hence, the conviction and judgment appealed is affirmed.

WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Kimble, seeks review of his conviction, after jury trial, for the offense of assaulting a police officer with intent to do violence. As. a defense in the trial court Kimble attempted to establish that the police officer did not inform him that he was being arrested and that excessive force was used by the police officer in making the arrest before he, Kimble, resisted the arrest by violence. We note from the transcript of testimony that there was conflict in the testimony of the witnesses in this regard which was up to the jury to weigh and resolve.

The sole point argued as error on this appeal deals with the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. The record on appeal reflects that the trial judge was not given the opportunity to rule on this alleged error by a motion for new trial. Therefore, we are precluded on this appeal from considering error based on the [472]*472insufficiency of the evidence. Gilbert v. State, 148 Fla. 293, 4 So.2d 330 (1941); Smith v. State, 194 So.2d 310 (Fla.App.1st, 1967). Hence, the conviction and judgment appealed is affirmed.

WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 So. 2d 471, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kimble-v-state-fladistctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack