Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. DiGuiliogreen2 sentences2019For that reason, the trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting Mr. Newby from introducing that evidence under the reverse Williams rule here.8 The Trial Court's Error Was Not Harmless Beyond A Reasonable Doubt The State argues that any error in precluding evidence of D.W.'s attack was harmless because "Mr. Newby was still able to argue that another person committed burglary." To prevail on this argument, the State must "prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the 2013See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1138 (Fla.1986) (“The harmless error test ... places the burden on the state, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Boydgreen1 sentence2023We caution the trial court, however, that reliance on a generic assertion of lab delay in the face of what was represented to the trial court as a significant, almost two-week delay in submitting the substances to the lab, without more, may fail to take into account “the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.” Davis, 162 So. 3d at 93 (quoting State v. Boyd, 846 So. 2d 458, 460 (Fla. 2003)). 3 The State argues that any error in finding good cause was cured by the filing of an information on November 22, 2023, two days after the trial court’s good cause hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Ford v. Campbellgreen1 sentence2023The State relies on Ford v. Campbell, 697 So. 2d 1301, 1302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), for the proposition that the filing of an information moots the relief requested. | 1 | 1 |
Donna Horwitz v. Stategreen1 sentence2018“A trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review, but the court’s discretion is limited by the rules of evidence and the applicable case law.” Horwitz v. State, 189 So. 3d 800, 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). | 1 | 1 |
Provow v. Stategreen1 sentence2013The State argues that any error in this case is not fundamental, citing Dempsey, Croom, and Provow v. State, 14 So.3d 1134, 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Gerds v. Stategreen1 sentence2008We have previously held that due process requires "that a defendant be accorded the right to have a Court correctly and intelligently instruct the jury on the essential and material elements of the crime charged and required to be proven by competent evidence." Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953). | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Stategreen1 sentence2008The State argues that any error was harmless, but the "harmless error standard is not whether evidence that was properly admitted would alone have been sufficient to support the verdict." Robinson v. State, 982 So.2d 1260, 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). | 1 | 1 |
Occhicone v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See Occhicone, 768 So.2d at 1048 ("[S]trategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if alternative courses have been considered and rejected and counsel's decision was reasonable under the norms of professional conduct."). [5] This issue is more fully addressed under the third issue of Peede's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus below. [6] While the State argues that any error concerning the admission of the nude photographs was not preserved for appeal, Peede argues correctly that after the State moved to introduce nude magazines into evidence, Peede's counsel asked fo | 1 | 1 |
Nesmith v. Stategreen1 sentence2003The State argues that any error was harmless because section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes, makes it unlawful to resist an arrest with force even if the arrest is illegal. [3] See Nesmith v. State, 616 So.2d 170, 171-172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fundoragreen1 sentence1994We reject this contention because the offenses were not similar and did not “share some unique characteristic or combination of characteristics that sets them apart from other offenses.” Heuring v. State, 513 So.2d 122,124 (Fla.1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Barnhill v. State
green
1 sentence2023However, the case on which the State relies to argue harmless error, Barnhill v. State, 834 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2002), did not involve a request for a continuance for the defendant to retain counsel of choice, but instead, a motion for continuance for a witness to personally appear to testify. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Robert Edward Davis v. State
green
1 sentence2023We caution the trial court, however, that reliance on a generic assertion of lab delay in the face of what was represented to the trial court as a significant, almost two-week delay in submitting the substances to the lab, without more, may fail to take into account “the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.” Davis, 162 So. 3d at 93 (quoting State v. Boyd, 846 So. 2d 458, 460 (Fla. 2003)). 3 The State argues that any error in finding good cause was cured by the filing of an information on November 22, 2023, two days after the trial court’s good cause hearing. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Cogbill v. State
green
1 sentence2012In this appeal, the State argues that any error in the instruction was not fundamental because the uncharged methods of committing the trafficking offense were subsumed within the charged method, relying on Cogbill v. State, 940 So.2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Rodgers v. State
green
1 sentence2011Defense counsel, however, raised the issue on his direct examination of Barcomb after the trial court had already ruled that the state could ask the question about prior felonies even without having the certified copy. “[Ojnee a trial court makes an unequivocal ruling admitting evidence over a movant’s motion in limine, the movant’s introduction of that evidence does not waive the error for appellate review.” See Rodgers v. State, 948 So.2d 655 (Fla.2006), quoting Sheffield v. Superior Ins. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Wightman v. State
green
1 sentence2009This case is similar to Wightman v. State, 982 So.2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), review granted, No. SC08-1240 (Fla. Nov. 18, 2008), where we reversed for a new trial because the State did not justify the presentation of evidence of ongoing abuse. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Harrison v. United States
green
2 sentences2003Conversely, Appellant argues that the outburst should not be considered because it constitutes so-called "fruit of the poisonous tree," citing Harrison v. United States, 392 U.S. 219 , 88 S.Ct. 2008 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1047 (1968). 2003Conversely, Appellant argues that the outburst should not be considered because it constitutes so-called "fruit of the poisonous tree," citing Harrison v. United States, 392 U.S. 219 , 88 S.Ct. 2008 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1047 (1968). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Taylor v. State
green
1 sentence2003Therefore, citing Taylor v. State, 740 So.2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), the State argues that it was not required to prove the second element and there was no harm in naming the defendant in the instruction regarding this element. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Banks
neutral
1 sentence1991Finally, the State argues that any error in admitting the testimony was harmless because evidence of appellant's guilt, "if not overwhelming, was very strong." *363 Appellant's counsel replies that the trial testimony of K.S., to which there was a continuing objection, and which this court must consider, contained omissions [2] which render it "relevant, if at all, solely to prove both directly and by innuendo, the bad character or propensity of the Appellant." He argues that K.S. had the capacity to consent to sexual activity, so that her testimony was inadmissible where the issue was not con | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Banks v. State
neutral
1 sentence1991Finally, the State argues that any error in admitting the testimony was harmless because evidence of appellant's guilt, "if not overwhelming, was very strong." *363 Appellant's counsel replies that the trial testimony of K.S., to which there was a continuing objection, and which this court must consider, contained omissions [2] which render it "relevant, if at all, solely to prove both directly and by innuendo, the bad character or propensity of the Appellant." He argues that K.S. had the capacity to consent to sexual activity, so that her testimony was inadmissible where the issue was not con | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Phillips v. State
green
1 sentence1991Finally, the State argues that any error in admitting the testimony was harmless because evidence of appellant's guilt, "if not overwhelming, was very strong." *363 Appellant's counsel replies that the trial testimony of K.S., to which there was a continuing objection, and which this court must consider, contained omissions [2] which render it "relevant, if at all, solely to prove both directly and by innuendo, the bad character or propensity of the Appellant." He argues that K.S. had the capacity to consent to sexual activity, so that her testimony was inadmissible where the issue was not con | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.