Mankowski v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Mankowski v. State

83 So. 2d 597

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedNovember 16, 1955

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 83 So. 2d 597 (Mankowski v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mankowski v. State, 83 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

THORNAL, Justice.

Appellant seeks reversal of a verdict and judgment of conviction of robbery by the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County.

The assignment of errors and brief of appellant suggests six alleged errors based on the admission of certain evidence, various comments by the trial Judge and comments of the Prosecuting Attorney in his argument to the Jury. The records and briefs have been carefully considered and while we do not endorse with approval some of the comments of the trial Judge in the handling of the trial, we do not find that any harmful error justifying reversal has occurred.

Our examination of the record establishes that the evidence of guilt of the appellant was clear and convincing. The alleged errors do not reach the legality of the trial itself, and in view of the conclusive nature of the evidence offered, there can be no reasonable doubt of appellant’s guilt. See Section 924.33, F.S., F.S.A.; Kelly v. State, 145 Fla. 491, 199 So. 764; Cornelius v. State, Fla. 1950, 49 So.2d 332; Salters v. State, 152 Fla. 284, 10 So.2d 809.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

DREW, C. J., and TERRELL, HOB-SON and ROBERTS, JJ., concur. THOMAS, J., agrees to conclusion. O’CONNELL, J., not participating.

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

THORNAL, Justice.

Appellant seeks reversal of a verdict and judgment of conviction of robbery by the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County.

The assignment of errors and brief of appellant suggests six alleged errors based on the admission of certain evidence, various comments by the trial Judge and comments of the Prosecuting Attorney in his argument to the Jury. The records and briefs have been carefully considered and while we do not endorse with approval some of the comments of the trial Judge in the handling of the trial, we do not find that any harmful error justifying reversal has occurred.

Our examination of the record establishes that the evidence of guilt of the appellant was clear and convincing. The alleged errors do not reach the legality of the trial itself, and in view of the conclusive nature of the evidence offered, there can be no reasonable doubt of appellant’s guilt. See Section 924.33, F.S., F.S.A.; Kelly v. State, 145 Fla. 491, 199 So. 764; Cornelius v. State, Fla. 1950, 49 So.2d 332; Salters v. State, 152 Fla. 284, 10 So.2d 809.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

DREW, C. J., and TERRELL, HOB-SON and ROBERTS, JJ., concur. THOMAS, J., agrees to conclusion. O’CONNELL, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 So. 2d 597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mankowski-v-state-fla-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack