BENNY M. WEEKS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; DAVID B. SURREY, 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.
Weeks and Surrey were convicted of service station robbery by jury verdict. On appeal, they challenged the sufficiency of evidence, the prosecutor's reference to the defense witness as an "acid head," and the admission of a rifle into evidence. The court affirmed the convictions, finding no merit to any of the appellants' arguments.
The court held that the state presented sufficient evidence to establish the elements of the crime and the defendants' connection to it, making credibility and weight determinations the jury's province. The court determined the prosecutor's "acid head" remarks were over zealous and unwise but unreviewable because no objection was made at trial. The court found that arguments regarding the rifle's admission went to weight of evidence rather than admissibility.
[1] A jury is responsible for determining the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence presented.
[2] Remarks made by a prosecutor during closing arguments are generally not reviewable on appeal if no objection was made at trial.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“At this point it became the province of the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence.”
Establishes that once the state presents sufficient evidence of the crime and defendant connection, credibility and weight determinations are exclusively the jury's responsibility on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Weeks and Surrey were charged with robbing a service station in Pinellas County. The state presented a witness who testified he drove both …
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 Closing Argument Propriety cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants Weeks and Surrey were charged by information with the robbery of a service station in Pinellas County. They were tried by a jury and found guilty.
The state produced a witness at the trial who testified concerning the events on the night of the robbery. This witness testified that he drove the codefendants to their home to obtain clothing with which to commit the robbery, and then drove them to the alleged area of the robbery. Weeks and Surrey left the car and returned sometime later saying they had robbed a service station. One of the defendants had a rifle, and the state’s witness identified it in court.
The state’s next witness was a service station attendant who testified that he was robbed on the night in question by two unknown persons, and that one of the robbers had a rifle.
Benny Weeks’ sister, Linda Fay Weeks, testified for the defense that defendant Surrey was with her in Louisiana on the night of the robbery. During cross-examination of this witness, and in closing argument, the state attorney referred to Miss Weeks as an “acid head.”
Appellants raise these issues on appeal:
1) The evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict because of inconsistencies in the testimony of one of the state witnesses.
2) The remarks made by the state attorney that Miss Weeks was an “acid head” were prejudicial and resulted in an unfair trial.
3) A rifle allegedly used in the robbery was improperly admitted in evidence.
Having examined the record, we find that there is no merit to any of these arguments. The state presented evidence to establish the elements of the crime and the connection of the defendants with the crime. At this point it became the province of the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence. Fast v. State, Fla.App.1966, 193 So.2d 210.
The question of Miss Weeks’ use of “acid” came up on cross-examination and was a proper subject for cross-examination. Remarks by the state attorney in closing argument that Miss Weeks was an acid head were perhaps over zealous and unwise, however, there was no objection made at the trial and this court therefore cannot review the challenged argument. State v. Jones, Fla.1967, 204 So.2d 515.
As to the admission of the rifle into evidence, appellant’s arguments go to the weight of the evidence, not to its admissibility. Mobley v. State, 41 Fla. 621, 626, 26 So. 732 (1889) ; Hunt v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 626.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
HOBSON, C. J., and MANN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grimsley v. State, 304 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…he remarks was made at the trial and appellant did not raise this point as an issue in her motion for new trial. The question cannot now be raised for the first time on appeal. Smith v. State, Fla.App.3rd, 243 So. 2d 602; Weeks v. State, Fla.App.2d, 241 So. 2d 203; and State v. Jones, Fla. 204 So. 2d 515. Appellant next contends that the trial court erred in denying her the right to make the opening and closing final arguments to the jury. Rule 3.250, F.R.Cr.P. (formerly § 918.09, Florida Statutes) provides…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Jones, 204 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1967)
- Mobley v. State, 41 Fla. 621 (Fla. 1899)
- Fast v. State, 193 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Hunt v. State, 172 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)