ROBERT NICHOLSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court affirmed conviction for sexual battery of a child, finding that trial errors including inadmissible similar crimes testimony and prosecutorial misconduct were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Trial errors including inadmissible similar crimes testimony and prosecutorial misconduct are harmless when overwhelming and virtually uncontradicted evidence of guilt establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[1] Harmless error doctrine applies when trial errors, though improper, have no real impact on outcome given overwhelming evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the sparse and inadmissible similar crimes testimony which was inadvertently elicited at trial by both the state and the defense, and (b) the improper questioning of one witness by the state and improper remarks of the prosecutor in final argument to the jury, were entirely harmless errors which had no real impact on the outcome of this case”
Court's statement of the errors found to be harmless
Robert Nicholson was convicted of sexual battery on his six-year-old stepdaughter in violation of Florida Statutes Section 794.011(2).…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sexual Battery On A Child cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In view of the overwhelming and virtually uncontradicted evidence of guilt adduced below indicating beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant Robert Nicholson committed a sexual battery on his six-year-old stepdaughter in violation of Section 794.011(2), Florida Statutes (1983), we conclude that: (a) the sparse and inadmissible similar crimes testimony which was inadvertently elicited at trial by both the state and the defense, and (b) the improper questioning of one witness by the state and improper remarks of the prosecutor in final argument to the jury, were entirely harmless errors which had no real impact on the outcome of this case. Stated differently, the above errors complained of, even if they had not occurred, would have made no difference whatever in the ultimate and inevitable outcome of this case. This being so, we are required by Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983), to affirm the final judgment of conviction and sentence under review — although, of course, we do not condone the errors complained of, and in a closer case on the issue of guilt or innocence, a different result might very well obtain. See State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955, 956 (Fla.1984); Darden v. State, 329 So. 2d 287, 289-91 (Fla.1976), cert. dismissed, 430 U.S. 704, 97 S.Ct. 1671, 51 L.Ed.2d 751 (1977); Zamot v. State, 375 So. 2d 881, 882-83 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Hamilton v. State, 356 So. 2d 30 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 885 (Fla.1978); Cochran v. State, 280 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Feldman v. State, 194 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). The final judgment of conviction and sentence under review is, in all respects
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rosso v. State, 505 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…450 U.S. 989, 102 S.Ct. 2269, 73 L.Ed.2d 1284 (1982). Courts will seldom order a new trial where the evidence of a defendant’s guilt is overwhelming, e.g., United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985); Nicholson v. State, 486 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 500 So. 2d 545 (Fla.1986); Tarpley v. State, 477 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Williard v. State, 462 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Zamot v. State, 375 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Courts are also more likely to excuse…
-
State v. Pautier, 548 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…e of the State to comply with an order to produce a confidential informant, arises from the State’s willful noncompliance, calculated official ignorance, or deliberate intentional [*712] activity. See Zamora, 584 So. 2d at 870; State v. Saldarriaga, 486 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The State’s failure to produce the confidential informant, in this case, although clearly negligent, does not rise to the gross level of willful or intentional disregard of a court order. “Dismissal of an information or an indic…
-
Burt Hickox v. State, 492 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…e motion for mistrial. Viewed in the context of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, uncontra-dicted by any direct testimony, we are persuaded that the inadvertent comment by the witness falls into the harmless error category. Cf. Nicholson v. State, 486 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). As for appellant’s contention that his effective cross-examination of the witness was hampered, because of the risk of eliciting even further comments on appellant’s past conduct, we observe that an instruction to the witness b…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1984)
- Darden v. Florida, 430 U.S. 704 (U.S. 1977)
- Darden v. State, 329 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1976)
- Vorchheimer v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 430 U.S. 703 (U.S. 1977)
- Cochran v. State, 280 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Jessee v. State, 375 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Zamot v. State, 375 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Feldman v. State, 194 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Hamilton v. State, 356 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)