Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Rowe v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 30, 1971No. Nos. 70-539, 70-561Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMann, Judge

Hysell, Mullinnix and Rowe were in a car parked on a Clearwater street late at night. All were arrested for possession of marijuana. Hysell pleaded guilty. Mullin-nix and Rowe were jointly tried despite a timely motion for severance on Rowe’s part, which should have been granted.

Evidence against Mullinnix included his flight from the scene at the time of arrest. The trial judge and prosecutor referred to this, and stated that this evidence was inadmissible against Rowe.

I do not think the case one of constitutional proportions such as Bruton v. U. S., 1968, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Bruton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Harrington v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Dutton v. EvansSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. Nelson v. O'NEILSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  5. Suarez v. State of FloridaSupreme Court of Florida · 1928

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API