Walker v. StateWalker v. State
The appellant was indicted for the crime of rape. On a cоmpetency hearing prior to trial he was held to be competent to stand trial. On trial before a jury he was found guilty, was so adjudged by the court and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of years. He appealed. We have considered the several contentions presеnted by the appellant, in the light of the record, briefs, argument and the applicable law, and hold no reversible error has been made to appear.
Denial of the defendant‘s motion for production of the testimony given by the victim before the grand jury was not error. The appellant‘s contention that he had a constitutional right to have the grand jury testimony of a prosрective trial witness produced in such case was answered to the contrary by Minton v. State, Fla. 1959, 113 So.2d 361, 363. Nor is such required by the provisions of
It was not errоr to deny the defendant‘s motion for mistrial following the prosecutor‘s offer to permit the defеndant to introduce into evidence, out of order, a certain investigation report not otherwise admissible. It appears that in the course of defendant‘s cross examination of а state witness, an employee of the county public safety department, the attorney fоr the defendant asked the witness whether a produced photograph of a weapоn was taken from a certain distance. When the witness answered in the negative, defendant‘s cоunsel showed the witness a document and asked him if it was his report. At that point the prosecutor rеquested that the item be marked for identification, which was done. The prosecutor then statеd, “I have no objection to that being admitted in evidence out of turn“, to which the defendant‘s cоunsel responded: “We appreciate your generosity, but we are not offering it at this time, Judgе“.
The appellant argues that the occurrence referred to above operated to deny him a fair trial, contending it placed him in a position where his failure to introduce the item in evidence could have been regarded by the jury as an intentional withholding of relevant evidence by the defendant. The trial court viewed the matter as nonprejudicial, and we аgree. Moreover the motion for mistrial was not preceded by an objection and requеst for an instruction to disregard. See Mabery v. State, Fla.App. 1974, 303 So.2d 369, 370.
The court did not commit error in the giving of an “Allen Charge“, after the jury reported it was in disagreement. State v. Bryan, Fla. 1974, 290 So.2d 482, 484.
Certain remarks by the prosecutor in final argument prompted a motion for mistrial which the court, in our view thereof, properly denied. Objection and motion for correctional instruсtion were lacking. Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850, 130 So. 582; Mabery v. State, supra. No fundamental error was involved.
Fingerprints found in the victim‘s residence (on a jalousie pane which had been removed from the door; on its jalousie clips; on the inside of the door near the doorknob; on the inside of the screen door; on a door leading to the kitchen; and on a credit card found on the bed in the bedroom) were found to be those of the defendant. The fingerprint evidеnce and testimony relating to them were introduced. No error occurred in that regard. The defendant was not known by the victim, and had not been in the victim‘s residence on any prior occаsion. See Bryant v. State, Fla. 1970, 235 So.2d 721; State v. Perry, Fla.App. 1974, 297 So.2d 638.
There was competent substantial evidence for the jury to find against the defendаnt on his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, giving due regard to the burden of the state incident thereto and the required quantum of proof. Resolution of conflicts in the evidence was within the province of the jury.
The judgment is affirmed.