Acosta v. State
599 So. 2d 284, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6644, 1992 WL 123428
Opinion
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
Acosta v. State, 599 So. 2d 284, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6644, 1992 WL 123428 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).
599 So. 2d 284 (Acosta v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
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)