BILLY C. SHAW, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Harmless Error Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Billy C. Shaw appeals his conviction for second degree murder contending the trial judge erred in allowing a pathologist to testify as an expert that no struggle with the victim occurred, and in failing to grant a motion for mistrial based upon improper comments by the prosecutor. We affirm.
The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion for mistrial.
The trial judge erred in permitting the pathologist to render an expert opinion that the deceased was not engaged in a struggle immediately prior to her death. However, this error could not have affected the outcome of this ease and is, therefore, harmless.
THOMPSON, ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant’s motion for rehearing and clarification is denied.
THOMPSON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. ZEHMER, J., concurs with opinion.
ZEHMER, Judge
(specially concurring).
Appellant contends in his motion for rehearing that since the state’s brief failed to argue that the erroneous admission of the expert opinion was harmless error, this court cannot affirm the conviction because the state clearly failed to carry its burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless, citing State v. Lee, 531 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1988), and Ciccarelli v. State, 531 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1988). Of course, there are some statements in both opinions that suggest this court should not affirm when the state fails to present any argument showing that the error is harmless, but I do not read those statements as broadly as appellant suggests.
Thus, for example, in Ciccarelli the court stated that “if the state has not presented a prima facie case of harmlessness in its argument, the court need go no further.” 531 So. 2d at 131. (Emphasis added).
I simply do not construe the emphasized language as meaning the court lacks the power to go further if it elects to do so. It is true that the state’s brief made no harmless error argument, but the cited decisions do not require reversal every time no such argument is made and preclude this court from determining sua sponte whether the error is harmless. If we have erred in this respect, clear conflict will exist and the supreme court can clarify, or correct if necessary, our views concerning the sua sponte application of the harmless error rule. For these reasons I join in the denial of the motions for rehearing and clarification.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. State, 619 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…state. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 595 So. 2d 132, 136 (Fla. 1st DCA1992), rev. denied, 601 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1992); Perkins v. State, 585 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1st DCA1991); Taylor v. State, 557 So. 2d 138, 144 (Fla. 1st DCA1990). But see Shaw v. State, 557 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1st DCA1990), rev. denied, 569 So. 2d 1280 (Fla.1990). If harmless error existed in this case, I would request this court to go en banc and revisit Johnson, Perkins, and Taylor. . It would appear that a more appropriate procedure would be to…
-
Christian v. State, 693 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…to him to prevent Ellis from killing or seriously injuring his brother. It is improper to permit an expert to express an opinion which applies a legal standard to a set of facts. See Gurganus v. State, 451 So. 2d 817, 821 (Fla.1984); Shaw v. State, 557 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). See also Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 703.1 at 524 (1996 Edition). As his third issue, appellant contends the trial court erred in imposing consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for use of a firearm for crimes which occurred…
-
Cnty. OF Volusia v. Kemp, 764 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…2d 817 (Fla.1984); Smith v. Martin, 707 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Christian v. State, 693 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), quashed on other grounds, 692 So. 2d 889 (Fla.1997); Gulley v. Pierce, 625 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Shaw v. State, 557 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); cf. Brescher v. Pirez, 696 So. 2d 370, 374 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“The appellee asserts that ... the court and the jury were entitled to rely on the testimony of a former police chief who rendered an ‘expert’ opinion that the…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ciccarelli v. State, 531 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1988)
- State v. LEE, 531 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1988)
- Kinchen v. State, 531 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1988)