Blackman v. State, 279 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
Blackman v. State, 279 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
34 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Stevens v. State (fladistctapp, 1997-05-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stevens v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Cf. Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959); Watson v. Campbell, 55 So.2d 540, 541 (Fla.1951) (‘evidence of another and distinct crime committed by defendant, in no way connected by circumstances with the one for which he is being tried, is inadmissible’); Whitehead v. State, 279 So.2d 99, 100 (Fla.App. 2nd 1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hopkins v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1982 · confidence medium
However, the State was empowered to ask only whether the defendant had ever been convicted of a crime, Whitehead v. State, 279 So.2d 99, 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), and not whether he had any prior arrests.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fulton v. State
Fla. · 1976 · confidence medium
Cf. Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959); Watson v. Campbell, 55 So.2d 540, 541 (Fla. 1951) ("evidence of another and distinct crime committed by defendant, in no way connected by circumstances with the one for which he is being tried, is inadmissible"); Whitehead v. State, 279 So.2d 99, 100 (Fla.App. 2nd 1973).
discussed Cited "see" Henry v. State
Fla. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hopkins v. State, 413 So.2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) ("[T]he State was empowered to ask only whether the defendant had ever been convicted of a crime. . . .") (citing Whitehead v. State, 279 So.2d 99, 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)).
cited Cited "see" Whitehead v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Whitehead v. State, Fla.App.2d 1973, 279 So.2d 99 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Engdall v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1975 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Whitehead v. State, Fla.App.1973, 279 So.2d 99 .
Edward BLACKMAN, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
72-1418.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Jun 12, 1973.
279 So. 2d 99
Barkdull, C.J., and Charles Carroll and Hendry.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender and John Lipinski, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William L. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

On appeal from conviction of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug and a barbiturate the appellant contends the judgment should be reversed because of a remark made by the prosecutor in closing argument. An objection made thereto at trial by defendant's counsel was sustained by the court. Considered in light of the evidence in the case the challenged remark of the prosecutor did not constitute harmful error. Under § 924.33 it is provided that a judgment should not be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion after examination of all of the appeal papers that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. See Cornelius v. State, Fla. 1950, 49 So.2d 332.

Affirmed.