Lane v. State, 430 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Lane v. State, 430 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Williams v. State (fladistctapp, 1987-02-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
See Brunelle v. State, 456 So.2d 1324, 1325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Lane v. State, 430 So.2d 989, 990 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Fitter v. State, 261 So.2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).
discussed Cited "see" Pringle v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lane v. State, 430 So.2d at 990 ; Harris v. State, 414 So.2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Culberson v. State, 210 So.2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 218 So.2d 171 (Fla. 1968) The issue regarding the admission of appellant's taped statement was not preserved for review because no contemporaneous objection was entered as to its authenticity or identification.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wells v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
Collins v. State, 65 So.2d 61 (Fla. 1953); Kirby v. State, 44 Fla. 81 , 32 So. 836 (1902); Postell v. State, 398 So.2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), pet. for review denied, 411 So.2d 384 (Fla. 1981); see also Lane v. State, 430 So.2d 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (no "BOLO exception").
Michael LANE, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
82-2202.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 10, 1983.
430 So. 2d 989
Schwartz, C.J., and Hubbart and Nesbitt.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Beth C. Weitzner, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Paul Mendelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

[*990] Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and NESBITT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We find no merit in either of Lane's contentions on appeal from his armed robbery conviction. First, while some evidence that the car he was found driving several days after the robbery belonged to the victim was incorrectly admitted hearsay,[1]Postell v. State, 398 So.2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 411 So.2d 384 (Fla. 1981), the error was completely harmless in the light of other overwhelming, concededly accurate, admissible evidence that this was true. Harris v. State, 414 So.2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Culberson v. State, 210 So.2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 218 So.2d 171 (Fla. 1968). Second, we do not find that the asserted improprieties in the prosecutor's final argument require a new trial. Nelson v. State, 416 So.2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Williams v. State, 425 So.2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Affirmed.

1 The prosecutor asserted the contrary under an apparently-self-created but hitherto and hereafter unknown "BOLO exception" to the hearsay rule.