Olsen v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Olsen v. State

75 So. 2d 281, 1954 Fla. LEXIS 1793

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedSeptember 14, 1954

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 75 So. 2d 281 (Olsen 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

Olsen v. State, 75 So. 2d 281, 1954 Fla. LEXIS 1793 (Fla. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

HOBSON, Justice.

Appellant, a former city patrolman on the Pensacola city police force, was .informed against below in two counts, the first count charging him, as well as two co-defendants, Coulter and Roberts, with larceny of an oxygen tank and an acetylene tank, and the second count charging appellant with receiving the same tanks, knowing them to have been stolen. A jury found appellant guilty as charged on the second count, and judgment was entered on this verdict. Coulter pleaded guilty, and Roberts, tried with appellant, was also convicted.

Witnesses against appellant included his co-defendant Coulter, and one Kla-patch, who had pleaded guilty to several felonies. Defense counsel attacked the credibility of' these witnesses “upon the theory that they had sought, and probably obtained, immunity, or leniency in consideration of their services to the State” but this remained only a theory, since the record affords no proof of it. Thus, although it is assigned as error, we hold that the trial court correctly refused the requested charges which pertained to the law under F.S. § 932.29, F.S.Á., because these charges would have been merely abstract propositions of law under the facts and circumstances of this case. The charge given was adequate.

Appellant further contends that it was error for the trial court to admit, in rebuttal of proof of his good character, which he had placed in issue, evidence of specific acts of bad conduct, Nelson v. State, 32 Fla. 244, 13 So. 361; Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113, 9 So. 835; Roberson v. State, 40 Fla. 509, 24 So. 474; Gafford v. State, 79 Fla. 581, 84 So. 602; Cornelius v. State, Fla., 49 So.2d 332; 32 C.J.S., Evidence § 436, p. 68. We agree that the ad[282]*282mission- complained of was error, but we have studied the record at length, and find that the evidence, with particular reference to facts admitted by appellant himself, leaves no room for reasonable doubt that appellant received and aided in the concealment of the property in question, knowing it to have been stolen, and that admission of the improper rebuttal evidence was not prejudicial or harmful to the substantial rights of the accused. The case must be affirmed upon the authority of Cornelius v. State, supra, 49 So.2d 332.

Affirmed.

TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice, SE-BRING, J., and PATTERSON, Associate Justice, concur.

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

HOBSON, Justice.

Appellant, a former city patrolman on the Pensacola city police force, was .informed against below in two counts, the first count charging him, as well as two co-defendants, Coulter and Roberts, with larceny of an oxygen tank and an acetylene tank, and the second count charging appellant with receiving the same tanks, knowing them to have been stolen. A jury found appellant guilty as charged on the second count, and judgment was entered on this verdict. Coulter pleaded guilty, and Roberts, tried with appellant, was also convicted.

Witnesses against appellant included his co-defendant Coulter, and one Kla-patch, who had pleaded guilty to several felonies. Defense counsel attacked the credibility of' these witnesses “upon the theory that they had sought, and probably obtained, immunity, or leniency in consideration of their services to the State” but this remained only a theory, since the record affords no proof of it. Thus, although it is assigned as error, we hold that the trial court correctly refused the requested charges which pertained to the law under F.S. § 932.29, F.S.Á., because these charges would have been merely abstract propositions of law under the facts and circumstances of this case. The charge given was adequate.

Appellant further contends that it was error for the trial court to admit, in rebuttal of proof of his good character, which he had placed in issue, evidence of specific acts of bad conduct, Nelson v. State, 32 Fla. 244, 13 So. 361; Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113, 9 So. 835; Roberson v. State, 40 Fla. 509, 24 So. 474; Gafford v. State, 79 Fla. 581, 84 So. 602; Cornelius v. State, Fla., 49 So.2d 332; 32 C.J.S., Evidence § 436, p. 68. We agree that the ad[282]*282mission- complained of was error, but we have studied the record at length, and find that the evidence, with particular reference to facts admitted by appellant himself, leaves no room for reasonable doubt that appellant received and aided in the concealment of the property in question, knowing it to have been stolen, and that admission of the improper rebuttal evidence was not prejudicial or harmful to the substantial rights of the accused. The case must be affirmed upon the authority of Cornelius v. State, supra, 49 So.2d 332.

Affirmed.

TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice, SE-BRING, J., and PATTERSON, Associate Justice, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 So. 2d 281, 1954 Fla. LEXIS 1793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olsen-v-state-fla-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack