Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Acosta v. State

Acosta v. State

599 So. 2d 284, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6644, 1992 WL 123428
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 9, 1992
DocketNo. 91-3025
StatusPublished

This text of 599 So. 2d 284 (Acosta v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Acosta v. State, 599 So. 2d 284, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6644, 1992 WL 123428 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm defendant’s convictions for possession of marijuana and cocaine. Defendant did not preserve for review the trial court’s failure to declare a mistrial, see Riechmann v. State, 581 So.2d 133 (Fla.1991), or its failure to give the agreed upon cautionary instruction. Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701, 703 (Fla.1978); Crespo v. State, 505 So.2d 685 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Furthermore, the record does not disclose that the prosecutor’s question constituted fundamental error. See Woodard v. State, 579 So.2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Riechmann v. State
581 So. 2d 133 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1991)
Castor v. State
365 So. 2d 701 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1978)
Crespo v. State
505 So. 2d 685 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Woodard v. State
579 So. 2d 875 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
599 So. 2d 284, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6644, 1992 WL 123428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acosta-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.