Gamble v. State, 696 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Gamble v. State, 696 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“fingerprint evidence is merely a variety of circumstantial evidence.”
14 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bedoya v. State (fladistctapp, 2001-02-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Bedoya v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
fingerprint evidence is merely a variety of circumstantial evidence.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Miranda v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
See id. at 483; Hill v. State, 973 So.2d 655, 655-56 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Mutcherson v. State, 696 So.2d 420, 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); cf. Burkett, 992 So.2d at 851-52 (distinguishing Ballard based on footprint evidence establishing that defendant had been at the scene of the murder at or near the time of the murder and directly contradicting defendant’s statements).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. State
Fla. · 2008 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Montero v. State, 780 So.2d 917, 917 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reversing the defendant's conviction because the record failed to show that the defendant validly waived his right to a jury trial); Hyler v. State, 732 So.2d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (concluding that a conviction must be reversed where the record contained no written waiver and did not reflect an inquiry by the trial court that the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial); Gamble v. State, 696 So.2d 420, 420 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (holding that the failure to inform the defendan…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hill v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
“Unless there is other evidence of identity, the state must show that the prints could have been made only at the time the crime was committed.” Mutcherson v. State, 696 So.2d 420, 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (citations omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
Mutcherson v. State, 696 So.2d 420, 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); C.E. v. State, 665 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Knight v. State, 294 So.2d 387, 388-389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).
discussed Cited "see" Adams v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. Mutcherson v. State, 696 So.2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), is distinguishable as the proof of possession of coins in that case, even if marginally tied to the offense of theft of quarters from vending machines, would not in and of itself be prejudicial.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Melendez v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See Rozier v. State, 636 So.2d 1386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); see, e.g., Mutcherson v. State, 696 So.2d 420, 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)(circumstantial evidence of the defendant's involvement in collateral crimes, i.e., his finger and palm prints on the gumball machines, the unusually large amount of change he carried in his pocket at the time of arrest, and the similarities of each burglary, constituted clear and convincing evidence connecting Mutcherson with all three burglaries).
Daniel GAMBLE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
96-1923.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Jun 27, 1997.
696 So. 2d 420
Dauksch.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

Stephen R. Jewett of Steven R. Jewett, Orlando, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anthony J. Golden, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction in a criminal case.

Appellant was being tried for various narcotics-related charges when one of the jurors became incapacitated and was excused. This left only five jurors to decide appellant's case. The case proceeded to verdict upon receiving a waiver of appellant's rights by his lawyer.

The accused was not informed by the court of his constitutionally mandated right to a six-person jury, nor was he consulted as to his wishes in that regard. Art. 1 § 22, Fla. Const.; Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223, 98 S.Ct. 1029, 55 L.Ed.2d 234 (1978). That was error and a new trial is the only remedy. See Blair v. State, 667 So.2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. granted, 680 So.2d 421 (Fla.1996).

W. SHARP, J., concurs.

PETERSON, C.J., concurs specially, with opinion.

PETERSON, Chief Judge, concurring.

I write only to note the lesson to be learned here is that waiver of a full member jury should only be accepted by the trial judge when given personally by a defendant who has had his constitutional rights explained to him by his attorney or the court.