NIMROD C. GRACE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Nimrod C. Grace appeals his conviction for attempted robbery, claiming the trial court erred by refusing to give instructions on lesser included offenses and by admitting a co-defendant's implicating statement. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirms the conviction, holding that Grace waived both claims by failing to object at trial.
The court held that Grace waived both claims by failing to object at trial. The failure to object to jury instructions at trial precludes appellate review, and the failure to request a limiting instruction on the co-defendant's statement forecloses appellate complaint regarding its admission.
“Evidence which is admissible as against one or more co-parties and inadmissible as to other co-parties cannot be excluded. It is the duty of the court to receive it.”
Establishes the principle that in joint trials, evidence admissible against one defendant must be admitted even if inadmissible against co-defendants.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGrace and three other persons were charged with attempted robbery. All four defendants were jointly tried before a jury, which convicted them. During …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Limiting Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant-appellant, Nimrod C. Grace, along with three other persons was charged by information with the crime of attempted robbery, convicted by a jury, judgment and sentence imposed by the court. It is from this judgment and sentence the defendant, Grace, appeals. We affirm.
The defendant, in the main, suggests as error the court’s refusal to give any instructions on lesser included offenses and the court allowing into evidence the oral implicating statement of a co-defendant.
*226In connection with the first alleged error the record fails to show that the defendant made any objection to^ the trial court to the giving or the failure to give any instruction. It is now too late in an appeal for him to assign as error or as grounds of appeal the giving or the failure to give an instruction to the jury. See Section 918.10(4), F.S.1965, F.S.A.; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1959, 109 So.2d 379; Miller v. State, Fla.App. 1958, 102 So.2d 737; Guarino v. State, Fla. 1953, 67 So.2d 650; Febre v. State, 1947, 158 Fla. 853, 30 So.2d 367.
In connection with the second alleged error the record reveals that all four defendants were jointly tried. They were co-parties. Evidence which is admissible as against one or more co-parties and inadmissible as to other co-parties cannot be excluded. It is the duty of the court to receive it. The implicating statement complained of made by defendant’s co-defendant was admissible in evidence against the co-defendant. However, the trial judge upon request should have instructed the jury that the admissions of defendant’s co-defendant could be considered only in determining the guilt of the co-defendant and could not be considered against the defendant.
The defendant made no request to the court to so instruct as to the purpose and effect of the oral implicating statement. His failure to request the court to give such instructions now precludes him from complaining that the statement was improperly admitted into evidence and that the omission of such instructions was prejudicial. See Burris v. United States, 5 Cir. 1951, 192 F.2d 253; State v. Gillies, 1912, 40 Utah 541, 123 P. 93, 43 L.R.A.,N.S., 776; Thomason v. State, 1913, 71 Tex.Cr. 439, 160 S.W. 359; Vance v. State, 1950, 190 Tenn. 521, 230 S.W.2d 987, cert. denied, 339 U.S. 988, 70 S.Ct. 1010, 94 L.Ed. 1389; 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1032(4) at 1144; 5 Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure § 2090 at 256, 258.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS and Mc-CAIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Paul v. State, 209 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…ial court judge. Under these circumstances we find that the trial judge did not commit reversible error in this regard. See Brown v. State, Fla. 1968, 206 So. 2d 377; Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So. 2d 625 (1947); Grace v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So. 2d 225. We have considered the other points argued by the appellant for reversal and find them to be without merit. The judgment and sentence herein appealed is, therefore, Affirmed.…
-
Baker v. State, 211 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…arily. Therefore, we find the point not to be well taken on this appeal. Compare: Morgan v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 60; State v. Jones, Fla.1967, 204 So. 2d 515; Colebrook v. State, Fla.App.1968, 205 So. 2d 675; Grace v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So. 2d 225; Harris v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 108; DeRiggi v. State, Fla.App.1968, 209 So. 2d 714 [opinion filed April 30, 1968], Affirmed.…
-
Norris v. State, 249 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…7, 1971; State v. Owens, Fla.1970, 233 So. 2d 389; State v. Contreras, Fla.1969, 227 So. 2d 306; State v. Kahler, Fla.1970, 232 So. 2d 166; Warren v. State, Fla.App.1969, 227 So. 2d 213; F.S. section 918.10(4), F. S.A.; Grace v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So. 2d 225; Dryden v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 662; Owens v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 215 So. 2d 627; Dalton v. State, Fla. 949, 42 So. 2d 174; Guarino v. State, Fla.1953, 67 So. 2d 650; Forceier v. State, Fla.App.1961, 133 So. 2d 336; Williams v. State, F…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Febre v. State, 158 Fla. 853 (Fla. 1947)
- Williams v. State, 109 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Guarino v. State, 67 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1953)
- Burris v. United States, 192 F.2d 253 (5th Cir. 1951)
- Forsythe v. Cary, 102 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Bennie Mark Miller v. State, 102 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Krause v. Hiatt, 339 U.S. 988 (U.S. 1950)
- Taylor v. United States, 339 U.S. 988 (U.S. 1950)