Tillman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tillman v. State

643 So. 2d 1190, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9983, 1994 WL 568529

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 19, 1994

DocketNo. 93-1855

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 643 So. 2d 1190 (Tillman 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

Tillman v. State, 643 So. 2d 1190, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9983, 1994 WL 568529 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jessie Tillman appeals a judgment of convictions. We affirm. The record reveals testimony from which the trial court could properly conclude that the police obtained voluntary consent before conducting the search of defendant’s home. Denehy v. State, 400 So.2d 1216 (Fla.1980). Although .that evidence conflicted with testimony presented by defendant, it was the duty of the factfinder to resolve that conflict. Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla.1981), aff'd, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982); Perez v. State, 536 So.2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In addition, the trial court did not err in refusing to give defendant’s requested instructions concerning testimony of witnesses who have plead guilty and witnesses who are co-conspirators. The trial court gave Florida Standard Jury Instructions (Crim.) 14-15, 17. Those instructions direct the jury to consider whether each witness had been convicted of a crime or received favorable treatment in exchange for his testimony in determining the testimony’s reliability, and to use great caution in relying on an accomplice’s testimony against defendant. The standard jury instructions adequately cover the issues addressed in the requested instructions. See Davis v. State, 520 So.2d 572 (Fla.1988); McGuire v. State, 639 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Williams v. State, 591 So.2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment under review.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jessie Tillman appeals a judgment of convictions. We affirm. The record reveals testimony from which the trial court could properly conclude that the police obtained voluntary consent before conducting the search of defendant’s home. Denehy v. State, 400 So.2d 1216 (Fla.1980). Although .that evidence conflicted with testimony presented by defendant, it was the duty of the factfinder to resolve that conflict. Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla.1981), aff'd, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982); Perez v. State, 536 So.2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In addition, the trial court did not err in refusing to give defendant’s requested instructions concerning testimony of witnesses who have plead guilty and witnesses who are co-conspirators. The trial court gave Florida Standard Jury Instructions (Crim.) 14-15, 17. Those instructions direct the jury to consider whether each witness had been convicted of a crime or received favorable treatment in exchange for his testimony in determining the testimony’s reliability, and to use great caution in relying on an accomplice’s testimony against defendant. The standard jury instructions adequately cover the issues addressed in the requested instructions. See Davis v. State, 520 So.2d 572 (Fla.1988); McGuire v. State, 639 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Williams v. State, 591 So.2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment under review.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

643 So. 2d 1190, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9983, 1994 WL 568529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tillman-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack