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.
13 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Snelgrove v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Snelgrove v. State , 921 So.2d 560 , 568 (Fla. 2005) ; Doorbal v. State , 837 So.2d 940 , 956-57 (Fla. 2003). 2017See Snelgrove v. State, 921 So. 2d 560, 568 (Fla. 2005); Doorbal v. State, 837 So. 2d 940, 956-57 (Fla. 2003). | 5 | 5 |
Ana Maria Cardona v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2026“Where the comments were improper and the defense objected, but the trial court erroneously overruled defense counsel’s objection, we apply the harmless error standard of review.” Id. 2026Where the comments were improper and the defense objected, but the trial court erroneously overruled defense counsel’s objection, we apply the harmless error standard of review.” Andres v. State, 254 So. 3d 283, 298-99 (Fla. 3 2018) (quoting Cardona v. State, 185 So. 3d 514 (Fla. 2016)) (internal citations omitted). | 4 | 6 |
Doorbal v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Snelgrove v. State , 921 So.2d 560 , 568 (Fla. 2005) ; Doorbal v. State , 837 So.2d 940 , 956-57 (Fla. 2003). 2017See Snelgrove v. State, 921 So. 2d 560, 568 (Fla. 2005); Doorbal v. State, 837 So. 2d 940, 956-57 (Fla. 2003). | 4 | 5 |
Patrick Albert Evans v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2025The state even concedes such: “[I]t is true that the flip phone’s capabilities were never proven at trial.” Thus, the trial court erred when overruling appellant’s objection to “facts not in evidence.” Since the admission was in error, we apply the harmless error test to “those closing arguments where the defense objected to improper comments and the trial court erroneously overruled defense counsel’s objection.” Evans v. State, 177 So. 3d 1219, 1234 (Fla. 2015), receded from on other grounds by Johnson v. State, 252 So. 3d 1114, 1117-18 (Fla. 2018). 2018See Evans v. State, 177 So. 3d 1219, 1234 (Fla. 2015) (“For those closing arguments where the defense objected to improper comments and the trial court erroneously overruled defense counsel’s 3 objection, we apply a harmless error test.”). | 2 | 2 |
Rafael Andres v. State of Floridagreen1 sentence2026Where the comments were improper and the defense objected, but the trial court erroneously overruled defense counsel’s objection, we apply the harmless error standard of review.” Andres v. State, 254 So. 3d 283, 298-99 (Fla. 3 2018) (quoting Cardona v. State, 185 So. 3d 514 (Fla. 2016)) (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Rico Johnson v. State of Floridagreen1 sentence2025The state even concedes such: “[I]t is true that the flip phone’s capabilities were never proven at trial.” Thus, the trial court erred when overruling appellant’s objection to “facts not in evidence.” Since the admission was in error, we apply the harmless error test to “those closing arguments where the defense objected to improper comments and the trial court erroneously overruled defense counsel’s objection.” Evans v. State, 177 So. 3d 1219, 1234 (Fla. 2015), receded from on other grounds by Johnson v. State, 252 So. 3d 1114, 1117-18 (Fla. 2018). | 1 | 1 |
Ibar v. Stategreen1 sentence2018“Where the comments were improper and the defense objected, but the trial court erroneously overruled defense counsel’s objection,” the harmless error standard of review applies, which 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.’” Cardona v. State, 185 So. 3d 514, 520 (Fla. 2016) (quoting Ibar v. State, 938 So. 2d 451, 466 (Fla. 2006)). | 1 | 1 |
Bailey v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Cardona v. State, 185 So. 3d 514, 520 (Fla. 2016) (providing that “[w]here the comments were improper and the defense objected, but the trial court erroneously overruled defense counsel’s objection, [the appellate court] appl[ies] the harmless error standard of review”); accord Diaz v. State, 139 So. 3d 431, 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Sheridan v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Id. at 225-26 (emphasis supplied). - 25 - arguments where the defense objected to improper comments and the trial court erroneously overruled defense counsel’s objection, we apply a harmless error test. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.