From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blackman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jun 12, 1973
279 So. 2d 99 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

Opinion

No. 72-1418.

June 12, 1973.

Appeal from the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County, Alfonso C. Sepe, J.

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.


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.


Summaries of

Blackman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jun 12, 1973
279 So. 2d 99 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)
Case details for

Blackman v. State

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD BLACKMAN, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Jun 12, 1973

Citations

279 So. 2d 99 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

Citing Cases

Powers v. State

Our review of the entire record in this case leads us to the conclusion that no error was committed which…

Brown v. State

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Falcon v. State, 226 So.2d 399 (Fla. 1969); Blackman v. State, 279 So.2d 99 (Fla.3d DCA…