Rounds v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rounds v. State

382 So. 2d 775, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16534

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 8, 1980

DocketNo. 79-1026

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 382 So. 2d 775 (Rounds 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

Rounds v. State, 382 So. 2d 775, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16534 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of conviction and sentence under review is affirmed upon a holding that (a) the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the admissibility of the defendant’s statements to the police as he did not object at trial to the admission of such statements subsequent to the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress. Jones v. State, 360 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Tennant v. State, 205 So.2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); see Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331 (Fla.1978); and (b) the trial court did not commit error in denying the defend[776]*776ants motion for judgment of acquittal and motion for new trial as the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain a conviction for manslaughter and did not establish the defense of self defense or excusable homicide as a matter of law. Popps v. State, 120 Fla. 387, 162 So. 701 (1935); W. LaFave & A. W. Scott, Jr., Criminal Law 572, 574 (1972); Perkins on Criminal Law 54, 60 (2d ed. 1969).

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of conviction and sentence under review is affirmed upon a holding that (a) the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the admissibility of the defendant’s statements to the police as he did not object at trial to the admission of such statements subsequent to the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress. Jones v. State, 360 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Tennant v. State, 205 So.2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); see Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331 (Fla.1978); and (b) the trial court did not commit error in denying the defend[776]*776ants motion for judgment of acquittal and motion for new trial as the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain a conviction for manslaughter and did not establish the defense of self defense or excusable homicide as a matter of law. Popps v. State, 120 Fla. 387, 162 So. 701 (1935); W. LaFave & A. W. Scott, Jr., Criminal Law 572, 574 (1972); Perkins on Criminal Law 54, 60 (2d ed. 1969).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

382 So. 2d 775, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rounds-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack