Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

271 So. 2d 771

Wright v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 24, 1973

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1973-01-24

Relies on 265 So. 2d 361 - State v. Wright · 250 So. 2d 333 - Wright v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1973-01-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1998

6 state decisions

30197319801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PIERCE, Judge (Ret.).

¶1By opinion filed in and by this 2nd District Court on July 7, 1971 (250 So.2d 333) we reversed the conviction of appellant Kenneth Ray Wright of first degree murder upon the principal ground that admission into evidence at the trial over objection of Wright of certain colored photographs was prejudicial error.

¶2On July 19, 1972, upon review by writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, in an opinion reported in 265 So.2d 361, quashed this Court’s said judgment of reversal and remanded the cause back to' this Court “for further proceedings not inconsistent with this [the Supreme Court’s] opinion.”

¶3Upon the original submission of the case upon appeal to this Court, numerous alleged errors were raised and argued. This Court considered and discussed in detail only two of said alleged errors, (1) the admission of the colored photographs in evidence and (2) the refusal of the trial Judge to give the jury certain requested charges having to do with felony-murder offenses. The Supreme Court in its opinion held against this Court on both points.

¶4After the lodging in this 2nd District Court of the Supreme Court’s judgment of quashal aforesaid, we considered it our duty to re-examine the assignments of error and contentions made thereon by appellant Wright in his original appeal to this Court other than the two points aforesaid on which this Court based its reversal. We have accordingly reconsidered such points heretofore raised on behalf of appellant Wright not heretofore referred to in our previous opinion. We find such contentions to be without merit and therefore not reversible.

¶5The foregoing disposes of all contentions heretofore presented to this Court for reversal of the judgment and sentence of the trial Court appealed here. Said judgment so appealed is therefore affirmed and the mandate of this Court is directed to be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court.

¶6So ordered.

MANN, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
/271/so2d/771 · .json · Public domain