Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Miller v. State
Citations: 389 So. 2d 1210; 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18001Docket: No. PP-386
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; October 22, 1980; Florida; State Appellate Court
Miller was convicted of burglary and appealed the decision, citing several issues. He contended that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that the state needed to prove the burglary occurred at “approximately 4:15 a.m.,” as stated in the bill of particulars. Miller's alibi was supported by his roommate, who testified that he found Miller injured upon returning home at 3:30 a.m. on October 26, 1977, after Miller had allegedly injured himself while climbing fuel oil drums. Conversely, a state witness testified that the burglary took place around 2:00 a.m., and hospital records indicated Miller was admitted at 6:48 a.m. The court found no significant material variation between the state’s evidence and the bill of particulars, concluding that Miller was not prejudiced by the timing discrepancy, and any error in jury instruction was deemed harmless. The state’s evidence was sufficient to show the burglary occurred within the time frame listed. Miller's argument regarding the testimony of a rebuttal witness, who he claimed was under duress due to threats of prosecution, was rejected. This witness had initially agreed to testify for the state and was granted immunity. The court determined that the prosecution of the witness was appropriate under the circumstances and did not amount to coercion. Additionally, the court addressed the defense's claim of inadequate discovery related to the rebuttal witness, ruling that the trial court had sufficiently investigated the situation and found no prejudice to Miller. It noted that the defense was aware of the witness and what he would testify about prior to the trial. The court reviewed all other points raised by Miller and found them unmeritorious, ultimately affirming the conviction. Judges ERVIN, LARRY G. SMITH, and SHIVERS concurred with the decision.