JAMES CORBIN, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error by overruling an objection to an improper question, as the assignment of error was insufficient and the error was harmless.
Appellant was convicted of murder in the second degree. During cross-examination, he was asked if he had been arrested for carrying a gun, to which he…
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 Assignments Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was tried before a jury for the crime of murder in the second degree. He was found guilty by the jury, adjudicated guilty, and sentenced. On this appeal, the only substantial question presented is whether the trial court committed prejudicial error when it failed to sustain appellant’s objection to an improper question. We hold that the alleged error is not supported by a proper assignment of error; we have examined the record and find that it is free of prejudicial error.
The appellant, while being cross-examined, was improperly asked if he had been arrested for carrying a gun. Lockwood v. State, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 770. An objection to the question was made and was overruled. Appellant then answered the question in the negative.
The alleged error is not reached under the general assignment of error that, “The court erred in overruling the various objections made by defendant’s attorney during the trial.” Redditt v. State, Fla.1955, 84 So.2d 317. See also Roberts v. State, 94 Fla. 149, 113 So. 726 (1927). We further hold that the error was harmless in that the arrest was denied by the witness (appellant) and it conclusively appears from the record that the improper question could not have impaired appellant’s right to a fair trial. Smith v. State, Fla.App.1968, 217 So.2d 359.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DiPIETRO v. State, 264 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Walker v. State, 44 Fla. 466, 32 So. 954; Redditt v. State, Fla. 1955, 84 So. 2d 317; Robertson v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 304; Richardson v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So. 2d 530; Corbin v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 259 So. 2d 543.…
-
Willinsky v. State, 328 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…ion, motion to strike or motion for mistrial. Nevertheless, we do not decide the case on that basis because it is apparent that if error did arise during cross-examination, it was harmless. See Fla.Stat. § 924.33, and Corbin v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 259 So. 2d 543. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Fogle v. Fogle, 84 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 1956)
- Roberts v. State, 94 Fla. 149 (Fla. 1927)
- Lockwood v. State, 107 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Berman Leasing Co. v. Brumage, 217 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)