Olivera v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Olivera v. State

719 So. 2d 341, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11669, 1998 WL 617768

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 16, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2801

StatusPublished

This text of 719 So. 2d 341 (Olivera 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

Olivera v. State, 719 So. 2d 341, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11669, 1998 WL 617768 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant Ricardo Olivera appeals his conviction for second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder. We affirm.

First, we conclude that the admission of the disputed autopsy photograph into evidence was within the discretion of the trial judge and that the photograph was not unfairly prejudicial. See Kirby v. State, 625 So.2d 51, 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The photograph at issue was not of the same graphic nature as those erroneously admitted in Hoffert v. State, 559 So.2d 1246, 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We also conclude that the evidence on the charge of second-degree murder was sufficient to be presented to the jury-

Defendant’s final claim is that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on attempted second-degree murder because the standard jury instructions do not require the state to prove that the defendant intended to kill. We reject that claim on the authority of Gentry v. State, 437 So.2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1983); Pitts v. State, 710 So.2d 62, 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); and Galdamez v. State, 713 So.2d 1128, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1749 (Fla. 3d DCA July 29, 1998).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant Ricardo Olivera appeals his conviction for second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder. We affirm.

First, we conclude that the admission of the disputed autopsy photograph into evidence was within the discretion of the trial judge and that the photograph was not unfairly prejudicial. See Kirby v. State, 625 So.2d 51, 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The photograph at issue was not of the same graphic nature as those erroneously admitted in Hoffert v. State, 559 So.2d 1246, 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We also conclude that the evidence on the charge of second-degree murder was sufficient to be presented to the jury-

Defendant’s final claim is that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on attempted second-degree murder because the standard jury instructions do not require the state to prove that the defendant intended to kill. We reject that claim on the authority of Gentry v. State, 437 So.2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1983); Pitts v. State, 710 So.2d 62, 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); and Galdamez v. State, 713 So.2d 1128, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1749 (Fla. 3d DCA July 29, 1998).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

719 So. 2d 341, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11669, 1998 WL 617768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olivera-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack