Kleinbard v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kleinbard v. State

208 So. 2d 127, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5716

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 12, 1968

DocketNo. 67-232

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 208 So. 2d 127 (Kleinbard 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

Kleinbard v. State, 208 So. 2d 127, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5716 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of (1) possession of barbiturates and (2) using a false address to obtain barbiturates contrary to the provisions of § 404.02, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. The appellant presents two points. The first urges that the State failed to establish a primia facie case because it did not prove affirmatively that appellant obtained the drugs with criminal intent. Without deciding-the question of whether this particular statute requires scienter as a necessary element of the crime [see Coleman v. State ex rel. Jackson, 140 Fla. 772, 193 So. 84 (1940)], we hold that the evidence showed the giving of a false address where appellant did not live and never had lived and this, along with other testimony, established that the appellant knowingly gave a false address.

Appellant’s second point urges that he was denied the right of closing argument. This position has been repeatedly dealt with by the courts of this State who have held that unless the appellant requests closing argument, or objects to its omission, no error is shown. Willoughby v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 10, cf. State v. Jones, Fla.1967, 204 So.2d 515.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of (1) possession of barbiturates and (2) using a false address to obtain barbiturates contrary to the provisions of § 404.02, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. The appellant presents two points. The first urges that the State failed to establish a primia facie case because it did not prove affirmatively that appellant obtained the drugs with criminal intent. Without deciding-the question of whether this particular statute requires scienter as a necessary element of the crime [see Coleman v. State ex rel. Jackson, 140 Fla. 772, 193 So. 84 (1940)], we hold that the evidence showed the giving of a false address where appellant did not live and never had lived and this, along with other testimony, established that the appellant knowingly gave a false address.

Appellant’s second point urges that he was denied the right of closing argument. This position has been repeatedly dealt with by the courts of this State who have held that unless the appellant requests closing argument, or objects to its omission, no error is shown. Willoughby v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 10, cf. State v. Jones, Fla.1967, 204 So.2d 515.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 So. 2d 127, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kleinbard-v-state-fladistctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack