Profet v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Profet’s convictions and sentences for malice murder, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. It held that the armed-robbery evidence was constitutionally and statutorily sufficient, that the remaining sufficiency claims were abandoned, and that the trial court committed no reversible error concerning Profet’s decision not to testify, the investigation-of-the-murder defense, shoe-impression testimony, or jury access to enlarged photographs. The court also held that no cumulative prejudice existed because Profet established no individual errors.