ROBERT JOHNSON WARREN, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The appellate court affirmed a robbery conviction, finding that while the prosecution improperly used a deposition not in evidence during closing arguments, the error was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
No, the use of the deposition was improper but harmless error because the evidence of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming.
“We agree that the state acted improperly in presenting to the jury during closing argument portions of the complaining witness' deposition which had not been received in evidence.”
Establishes the court's acknowledgment of the improper conduct by the prosecution.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of robbery after a jury trial and sentenced. During the closing argument, the state presented portions of the complaining …
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 Overwhelming Evidence Of Guilt cases and more on FLexlaw
Following trial by jury the defendant was convicted of robbery' and duly sentenced. He appeals. We affirm.
We agree that the state acted improperly in presenting to the jury during closing argument portions of the complaining witness’ deposition which had not been received in evidence. R. L. Bernado & Sons, Inc. v. Duncan, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 297; Frenette v. State, 1947, 158 Fla. 675, 29 So.2d 869. This material attempted to explain the witness’ uncertainty as to whether his truck was located on an avenue or a terrace at the time it was ransacked. However, we have thoroughly examined the whole record and are convinced that the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt. In other words, we are clearly satisfied the defendant would have been found guilty even without this innocuous material. Cornelius v. State, Fla.1950, 49 So.2d 332; Mankowski v. State, Fla.1955, 83 So. 2d 597; Section 924.33, F.S.1967, F.S.A.
Affirmed.
WALDEN, REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Norris v. State, 249 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…kun v. State, Second District Court of Appeal, 244 So. 2d 145, filed February 17, 1971; State v. Owens, Fla.1970, 233 So. 2d 389; State v. Contreras, Fla.1969, 227 So. 2d 306; State v. Kahler, Fla.1970, 232 So. 2d 166; Warren v. State, Fla.App.1969, 227 So. 2d 213; F.S. section 918.10(4), F. S.A.; Grace v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So. 2d 225; Dryden v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 662; Owens v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 215 So. 2d 627; Dalton v. State, Fla. 949, 42 So. 2d 174; Guarino v. State, Fla.1953, 67 So…
Authorities Cited
- Cornelius v. State, 49 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1950)
- Frenette v. State, 158 Fla. 675 (Fla. 1947)
- R. L. Bernardo & Sons, Inc. v. Duncan, 134 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Mankowski v. State, 83 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1955)