Cravero v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Daniels v. State

    634 So. 2d 187 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 15 times
    In Daniels, the Court established that an express statement on the record from the trial court that the evidence was disregarded further supports a determination that the presumption was not rebutted.

    The granting or denying of a motion for severance lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Rollins v. State, 148 So.2d 274, 276 (Fla. 1963); Cravero v. State, 349 So.2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 129 (Fla. 1978). A denial of a motion for severance constitutes an abuse of discretion only if the defendant can demonstrate that he was injured by having a joint trial.

  2. Greenwood v. Massey

    469 F. Supp. 935 (S.D. Fla. 1979)   Cited 1 times

    In a written decision dated July 26, 1977, that court rejected Petitioner's claims. See Cravero v. State, 349 So.2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Certiorari review was sought and denied by the Florida Supreme Court on March 15, 1978. Petitioner charges that a police report containing statements by a purported "eyewitness" as to the crime was "totally contradictory to the state's theory of the case" and was not disclosed by the prosecution.

  3. Jacobs v. State

    389 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 20 times

    Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1943); Mathis v. State, 348 So.2d 1221 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 357 So.2d 186 (Fla. 1978); see also, Bush v. State, 369 So.2d 674, 676, n. 2 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Gibson v. State, 368 So.2d 667, 668, n. 2 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). Finally, contrary to the appellant's claims, we find no error in the trial court's admission of a photograph of the crime scene, Bauldree v. State, 284 So.2d 196 (Fla. 1973); Cravero v. State, 349 So.2d 649 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 129 (Fla. 1978), or in its approval of the prosecutor's reference in final argument to Jacobs' failure to call a supposedly favorable witness at the trial. Buckrem v. State, 355 So.2d 111 (Fla. 1978); Shapiro v. State, 345 So.2d 361 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 353 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1977); Jenkins v. State, 317 So.2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

  4. Smith v. State

    364 So. 2d 876 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

    In that case, the Supreme Court held that a conviction will not be reversed for violation of the Brady rule unless the omission is of sufficient importance to result in a denial of defendant's right to a fair trial. It is clear from this record that the proof of the present defendant's guilt was beyond a reasonable doubt and that the omission claimed could have had no meaningful effect upon the outcome of the trial. Cf. Cravero v. State, 349 So.2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Therefore, we find no error.

  5. Courtney v. State

    358 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 3 times

    Generally, the determination of admissibility is predicated upon relevancy. See, e.g., Swan v. State, 322 So.2d 485 (Fla. 1975); Bauldree v. State, 284 So.2d 196 (Fla. 1973); Cravero v. State, 349 So.2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Allen v. State, 340 So.2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); and Garmise v. State, 311 So.2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). In applying these principles to the instant case, it is clear that the relevancy of the photographs admitted into evidence was disclosed.