Murvin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Murvin v. State

371 So. 2d 1062, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15283

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 5, 1979

DocketNo. LL-34

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 371 So. 2d 1062 (Murvin 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

Murvin v. State, 371 So. 2d 1062, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15283 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals her final judgment and sentence for second degree murder, contending that the trial court erroneously allowed introduction of her inculpato-ry statement at a time when the corpus delicti of the crime had not yet been established by competent proof. We disagree, finding from our review of the record that the testimony of the state’s firearms expert adequately indicated that the death of appellant’s husband had occurred through the criminal agency of another. See State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823 (Fla.1976). Similarly, we reject appellant’s contention that she was entitled to a judgment of acquittal at the close of the state’s case in view of the circumstantial evidence suggesting a criminal act and the conflicting statements made by appellant regarding her participation in the shooting. The remaining point — that the court erred in allowing a state witness to answer a question about appellant’s character — is without merit since the character and personality traits of appellant had been placed into issue by her counsel’s earlier cross-examination of a state witness.

AFFIRMED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ROBERT P. SMITH and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals her final judgment and sentence for second degree murder, contending that the trial court erroneously allowed introduction of her inculpato-ry statement at a time when the corpus delicti of the crime had not yet been established by competent proof. We disagree, finding from our review of the record that the testimony of the state’s firearms expert adequately indicated that the death of appellant’s husband had occurred through the criminal agency of another. See State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823 (Fla.1976). Similarly, we reject appellant’s contention that she was entitled to a judgment of acquittal at the close of the state’s case in view of the circumstantial evidence suggesting a criminal act and the conflicting statements made by appellant regarding her participation in the shooting. The remaining point — that the court erred in allowing a state witness to answer a question about appellant’s character — is without merit since the character and personality traits of appellant had been placed into issue by her counsel’s earlier cross-examination of a state witness.

AFFIRMED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ROBERT P. SMITH and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

371 So. 2d 1062, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murvin-v-state-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack