McCray v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McCray v. State

369 So. 2d 111, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14736

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 6, 1979

DocketNo. JJ-378

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 369 So. 2d 111 (McCray 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

McCray v. State, 369 So. 2d 111, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14736 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raises several points from his conviction for second degree murder, the first being that the court erred in allowing into evidence six black and white photographs of the badly decomposed body of the victim over appellant’s objection that such photographs were irrelevant, inflammatory, and prejudicial. While the photographs were unquestionably gruesome, they were nevertheless relevant, either independently or as corroborative of other evidence and were therefore admissible. See Foster v. State, 369 So.2d 928 (Fla.1979); Bauldree v. State, 284 So.2d 196 (Fla.1973); State v. Young, 234 So.2d 341 (Fla.1970).

[112]*112We find that appellant has not properly preserved for appellate review his pretrial motion for continuance since it was not renewed at the time of the trial; moreover, appellant’s counsel indicated at trial that he was in fact ready for trial. See Riggins v. State, 283 So.2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Finally, as to the lower court’s alleged error in refusing to instruct on the character and reputation of the deceased, we find no error since there was no predicate established from the evidence introduced justifying the charge.

The judgment is in all respects AFFIRMED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., ERVIN, J. and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raises several points from his conviction for second degree murder, the first being that the court erred in allowing into evidence six black and white photographs of the badly decomposed body of the victim over appellant’s objection that such photographs were irrelevant, inflammatory, and prejudicial. While the photographs were unquestionably gruesome, they were nevertheless relevant, either independently or as corroborative of other evidence and were therefore admissible. See Foster v. State, 369 So.2d 928 (Fla.1979); Bauldree v. State, 284 So.2d 196 (Fla.1973); State v. Young, 234 So.2d 341 (Fla.1970).

[112]*112We find that appellant has not properly preserved for appellate review his pretrial motion for continuance since it was not renewed at the time of the trial; moreover, appellant’s counsel indicated at trial that he was in fact ready for trial. See Riggins v. State, 283 So.2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Finally, as to the lower court’s alleged error in refusing to instruct on the character and reputation of the deceased, we find no error since there was no predicate established from the evidence introduced justifying the charge.

The judgment is in all respects AFFIRMED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., ERVIN, J. and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 So. 2d 111, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccray-v-state-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack