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

LAWRENCE CHARLES BISHOP, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from convictions for first degree murder and armed robbery. Upon review of the record we find the evidence was sufficient to sustain both convictions. We reject appellant's claim of fundamental error with reference to the prosecutor's closing argument. We also find no reversible error in the manner in which the trial court conducted proceedings concerning the conduct of the jury. See Hall v. State, 420 So.2d 872 (Fla. 1982); State v. Melendez, 244 So.2d 137 (Fla. 1971). Finally, we find no reversible error in the trial court's refusal to permit appellant to cross-examine one of the state's witnesses regarding her juvenile record. The appellant's claim that the witness may have been on probation has no support in the record. Cf. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974). The appellant made no effort at trial or before to proffer to the court any particular matters that the appellant wished to present to the jury. Bennett v. State, 405 So.2d 265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). In addition, the appellant was permitted to elicit from this witness and others considerable evidence of this witness's past misconduct.

Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences entered by the trial court.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and HERSEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BISHOP v. STATE
(Oct 19, 1983)