HARVEY ROBERT WILLINSKY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Objections cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was found guilty by a jury of the sale or delivery of a controlled substance, cocaine. The point of this ap peal is the alleged error of the trial court in allowing the following question and answer during cross-examination:
“Q. Mr. Willinsky, you never told anybody at the preliminary hearing this story, did you?
“A. I never had a chance to testify in my preliminary hearing, but the young lady was there, in fact, Miss Danzinger.”
The error, if any exists, does not clearly appear because the record does not show an objection, 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Manning v. State, 336 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284; and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705. Regarding the second incident, we hold no reversible error occurred. See Willinsky v. State, Fla.App.1976, 328 So. 2d 536. Disclosure that the defendant had not testified at a preliminary hearing in the case was not reversible error. The story related by the defendant at his trial, that his flight from the officers was because of his possession of some marijuana, was p…
Authorities Cited
- Corbin v. State, 259 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)