CHRISTOPHER PAYNE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fundamental Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the appellant’s conviction and sentence as we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting testimony that the police were responding to a dispatch call involving the same vehicle driven by appellant. Collier v. State, 701 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(distinguish-ing Conley v. State, 620 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1993)). Assuming, arguendo, that some of the testimony admitted was covered by the court’s in limine motion, any abuse in admitting the testimony was harmless error. Additionally, as to the second issue raised by the appellant, we find no fundamental error in the jury instruction given by the court. Archer v. State, 673 So. 2d 17 (Fla.1996)(relief from unobjected-to errors in jury instruction appropriate only if appellate court finds error to be fundamental); State v. Delva, 575 So. 2d 643, 644-45 (Fla.1991)(finding error in giving jury instruction to be fundamental only when error reaches “into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Augustin Fleurimond v. State, 10 So. 3d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…tely sustained the objection and given a curative instruction. Unfortunately, the court did neither.1 The instances where this type of irrelevant testimony manages to invade trial proceedings are regrettably frequent. For example, in Hill v. State, 980 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), this Court reversed a conviction for drug possession based on a police officers’ testimony which was very similar to the testimony of the police detective in this case. In Hill, the defendant was charged with possession of heroin…
-
Lelieve v. State, 7 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…watching a house “that we knew to be selling narcotics” was improper, we do not agree that the comment mandated a mistrial below or reversal of Lelieve’s conviction here. In Lowder v. State, 589 So. 2d 933, 935 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), and Hill v. State, 980 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), this court held that testimony that impugns the reputation of a place is impermissible because it proves nothing material and is prejudicial. However, as explained in Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537, 541 (Fla.1999), error in adm…
-
Bell v. State, 33 So. 3d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…ent suggesting a witness gave “uncontra-dicted” or “uncontroverted” evidence is an impermissible comment on appellant’s right .to remain silent in those cases where the defendant is the only individual who can contradict the evidence. Hill v. State, 980 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (holding the State’s comment that the only witness gave “uncontradicted and uncontro-verted” testimony establishing appellant’s guilt was an impermissible comment on appellant’s right to remain silent where appellant was the only…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- D'Angelo v. State, 575 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1991)
- State v. Batraville Vincent Delva, 575 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1991)
- Conley v. State, 620 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1993)
- Archer v. State, 673 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1996)
- Collier v. State, 701 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)