Poller v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Poller v. State

778 So. 2d 541, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2485, 2001 WL 218962

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 7, 2001

DocketNo. 3D99-3250

StatusPublished

This text of 778 So. 2d 541 (Poller 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

Poller v. State, 778 So. 2d 541, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2485, 2001 WL 218962 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Troy Poller appeals his convictions for sexual battery with a deadly weapon or force, armed kidnapping, armed robbery, and armed carjacking. He characterizes the case against him as having depended entirely on the testimony of a previously convicted codefendant, Allems Victor. See Victor v. State, 774 So.2d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Even if that were true (which it is not), “[wjhile the testimony of an accomplice should be closely scrutinized and received with great caution, it is competent and may be sufficient to convict an accused. The credibility of a witness lies exclusively within the province of the jury.” Darby v. State, 216 So.2d 29, 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).

In reality, the defendant also admitted to a friend that he had committed the crime, and the friend testified at trial. One of the victims made an equivocal identification of the defendant from a lineup, and the defendant’s physical description fit the description given by both victims.

The evidence was legally sufficient. See Lynch v. State, 293 So.2d 44, 45 (Fla.1974).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Troy Poller appeals his convictions for sexual battery with a deadly weapon or force, armed kidnapping, armed robbery, and armed carjacking. He characterizes the case against him as having depended entirely on the testimony of a previously convicted codefendant, Allems Victor. See Victor v. State, 774 So.2d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Even if that were true (which it is not), “[wjhile the testimony of an accomplice should be closely scrutinized and received with great caution, it is competent and may be sufficient to convict an accused. The credibility of a witness lies exclusively within the province of the jury.” Darby v. State, 216 So.2d 29, 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).

In reality, the defendant also admitted to a friend that he had committed the crime, and the friend testified at trial. One of the victims made an equivocal identification of the defendant from a lineup, and the defendant’s physical description fit the description given by both victims.

The evidence was legally sufficient. See Lynch v. State, 293 So.2d 44, 45 (Fla.1974).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

778 So. 2d 541, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2485, 2001 WL 218962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poller-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack