State v. Hamilton

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Hamilton

240 So. 2d 509, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 5611

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 27, 1970

DocketNo. 70-855

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 240 So. 2d 509 (State v. Hamilton) 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

State v. Hamilton, 240 So. 2d 509, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 5611 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the state from a pretrial order in a criminal prosecution in the circuit court, as authorized by § 924.07 (8) Fla.Stat., F.S.A.1969. The challenged order granted defendants’ motion for severance, opposed by the state, which had elected to try jointly the defendants who were charged by indictment with the crime of murder in the first degree. The defendants, in the presence of each other, had made statements which were self-incriminating and which implicated the other. We find no error in that ruling of the trial court. It represented a matter resting in the discretion of the court (Jackman v. State, Fla.App.1962, 140 So.2d 627; Sylvia v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 286), and [510]*510in the circumstances presented the order of severance was proper. See Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the state from a pretrial order in a criminal prosecution in the circuit court, as authorized by § 924.07 (8) Fla.Stat., F.S.A.1969. The challenged order granted defendants’ motion for severance, opposed by the state, which had elected to try jointly the defendants who were charged by indictment with the crime of murder in the first degree. The defendants, in the presence of each other, had made statements which were self-incriminating and which implicated the other. We find no error in that ruling of the trial court. It represented a matter resting in the discretion of the court (Jackman v. State, Fla.App.1962, 140 So.2d 627; Sylvia v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 286), and [510]*510in the circumstances presented the order of severance was proper. See Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 So. 2d 509, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 5611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hamilton-fladistctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack