Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1984

Maynard v. State

Maynard v. State
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided September 13, 1984 · Cobb, Cowart, Dauksch
455 So. 2d 632; 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1932; 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14967 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Maynard v. State

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Bundy v. State, 455 So.2d 330 (Fla. 1984) and Wilson v. State, 436 So.2d 908 (Fla. 1983). In regard to the autopsy photographs admitted in the instant case, we have reviewed them pursuant to Leach v. State, 132 So.2d 329 (Fla. 1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 1005, 82 S.Ct. 636, 7 L.Ed.2d 543 (1962), and section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1983), and have determined that their admission into evidence, if error, was harmless in the instant case.

AFFIRMED.

COBB, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur. COWART, J., concurs specially with opinion.

Concurring Opinion

COWART, Judge,

concurring specially:

Bite-mark evidence, when relevant to prove identification, state of mind, the act itself or any other material fact, is admissible in evidence. Questions as to the weight to be given to such evidence, including the degree of its probative force and effect and the inferences to be drawn from it, are for the trier of fact. See Bundy v. State, 455 So.2d 330 (Fla. 1984); Annot., “Admissibility of Evidence Tending to Identify Accused By His Own Bite Marks,” 77 A.L.R.3d 1122 (1977).

Autopsy photographs, if relevant, are admissible in evidence, although gruesome. Wilson v. State, 436 So.2d 908 (Fla. 1983).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.