Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

DAVID LOMAX, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

David Lomax appeals his judgments and sentences entered by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of armed kidnaping with intent to commit a felony, sexual battery, lewd act upon a child under the age of 16 years, and lewd act in the presence of a child under the age of 16 years. We affirm.

§§ 787.01(1)(a)2, 775.087, 794.011, 800.04, Fla. Stat. (1997)

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting similar fact evidence to prove the defendant's identity pursuant to section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1997). See Jorgenson v. State, 714 So.2d 423, 427 (Fla. 1998). Nor did the trial court err in admitting DNA opinion evidence even though the state's expert witnesses did not personally compile the population statistics used in formulating their conclusions. See Murray v. State, 692 So.2d 157, 164 (Fla. 1997).

Judgments and sentences AFFIRMED.

SHARP, W., THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

LOMAX v. STATE
(Mar 5, 1999)