MacIas v. State, 447 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
MacIas v. State, 447 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Donado v. State (fladistctapp, 1990-04-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Donado v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
See State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955, 956 (Fla.1984); Breedlove v. State, 413 So.2d 1 , 8 (Fla.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 882 , 103 S.Ct. 184 , 74 L.Ed.2d 149 (1982); Macias v. State, 447 So.2d 1020, 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Tacoronte v. State, 419 So.2d 789, 792-93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
cited Cited "see" Castillo v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Harris v. State, 447 So.2d 1020 , 1020 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see also Smith v. State, 414 So.2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Dixon v. United States (2×)
D.C. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Macias v. State, 447 So.2d 1020, 1021 (Fla. App.1984) (conduct of prosecutor in questioning whether murder victim had ever seen his posthumously born child was an "extremely improper appeal to the sympathy of the jury," but harmless).
Lazaro MACIAS, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
83-447.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Apr 3, 1984.
447 So. 2d 1020
Schwartz, C.J., and Hendry and Ferguson.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

[*1021] Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and May L. Cain, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Penny H. Brill, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HENDRY and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The action of the prosecutor in questioning whether the murder victim had ever seen his posthumously born child was an extremely improper appeal to the sympathy of the jury. Edwards v. State, 428 So.2d 357 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Gomez v. State, 415 So.2d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Harper v. State, 411 So.2d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). In contrast to Edwards, Gomez and Harper, however, the trial court here sustained an objection to the question and instructed the jury to disregard it. See Tacoronte v. State, 419 So.2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). More important, considering the overwhelming evidence against the defendant, we must conclude that any error was harmless. State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955 (Fla. 1984); Hall v. State, 444 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

We find no merit in the other points presented. Rodriguez v. State, 413 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Costales v. State, 438 So.2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Cundiff v. United States, 501 F.2d 188 (8th Cir.1974).

Affirmed.