From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Breines v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Feb 27, 1985
462 So. 2d 831 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Opinion

No. 83-1936.

December 19, 1984. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied February 27, 1985.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Broward County, Leroy H. Moe, J.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Ellen Morris, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert L. Teitler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.


Appellant was convicted of drug trafficking. We conclude from a careful examination of the entire record that a decidedly improper remark by the prosecutor in summation "[Y]ou don't need fingerprints when you have got eyewitnesses . . . and I could have brought in five others . . .," was harmless error because of the overwhelming evidence against appellant. See State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955 (Fla. 1984).

The remaining point on appeal concerns the validity of the Florida trafficking statute, § 893.135, Fla. Stat. (1981). It is constitutional. State v. Werner, 402 So.2d 386 (Fla. 1981). State v. Benitez, 395 So.2d 514 (Fla. 1981).

Affirmed.

HERSEY, J., concurs.

LETTS, J., dissents with opinion.


I dissent, because I believe this decision may be in conflict with Thompson v. State, 318 So.2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Moreover, I am far from convinced it was harmless error.


Summaries of

Breines v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Feb 27, 1985
462 So. 2d 831 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
Case details for

Breines v. State

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES BREINES, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Feb 27, 1985

Citations

462 So. 2d 831 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Citing Cases

State v. Smith

Likewise, it has been recognized that it is impermissible for a prosecutor to indicate to the jury that he…

Llida v. State

Error, if any, in the prosecution comments was merely harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence. State v.…