Raco v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Raco v. State

114 So. 2d 485

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 17, 1959

DocketNo. 58-693

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 114 So. 2d 485 (Raco 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

Raco v. State, 114 So. 2d 485 (Fla. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from the judgment of guilty and the sentence for 1) breaking and entering, and 2) grand larceny. It is urged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and that the trial judge erred when certain exhibits were admitted because their materiality was not proved. In addition it is urged that the trial judge improperly curtailed the defendant’s right of cross-examination of one of the state’s witnesses.

A review of the record in the light of the briefs and oral argument reveals that the evidence was sufficient to establish each element of the crimes charged and that the exhibits admitted were shown to be material to the issue. Appellant’s point directed to the court’s ruling upon one question during cross-examination of one of the witnesses for the state is not grounds for reversal because defendant accepted the court’s ruling without objection. See § 924.11(3), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

Defendant now declares that the purpose of the question (which was outside the scope of the direct examination) was to show an alleged bias of the witness against [486]*486the defendant. At the time of the ruling no proffer was made nor was any effort made to show the relevancy of the evidence sought by the question.

Affirmed.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from the judgment of guilty and the sentence for 1) breaking and entering, and 2) grand larceny. It is urged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and that the trial judge erred when certain exhibits were admitted because their materiality was not proved. In addition it is urged that the trial judge improperly curtailed the defendant’s right of cross-examination of one of the state’s witnesses.

A review of the record in the light of the briefs and oral argument reveals that the evidence was sufficient to establish each element of the crimes charged and that the exhibits admitted were shown to be material to the issue. Appellant’s point directed to the court’s ruling upon one question during cross-examination of one of the witnesses for the state is not grounds for reversal because defendant accepted the court’s ruling without objection. See § 924.11(3), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

Defendant now declares that the purpose of the question (which was outside the scope of the direct examination) was to show an alleged bias of the witness against [486]*486the defendant. At the time of the ruling no proffer was made nor was any effort made to show the relevancy of the evidence sought by the question.

Affirmed.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 So. 2d 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raco-v-state-fladistctapp-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack