Ahariache v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ahariache v. State

882 So. 2d 523, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13877, 2004 WL 2101896

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 22, 2004

DocketNo. 3D03-2688

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 882 So. 2d 523 (Ahariache 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

Ahariache v. State, 882 So. 2d 523, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13877, 2004 WL 2101896 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Addressing the appellant’s primary point on appeal,¹ we agree that it may have been “preferable,” Bobb v. State, 647 So.2d 881, 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), review denied, 659 So.2d 270 (Fla.1995), for the trial court, to have- precluded the prosecutor from inquiring — beyond the admitted fact that the testifying defendant had previous, felony convictions, see § 90.610, Fla. Stat. (2003) — “into whether the felon[ies] involved dishonesty or false statement.” Bobb, 647 So.2d at 883. Nonetheless, the convictions and sentence for grand theft and criminal mischief under review are affirmed because we are convinced that any error which may have been involved, but see Tampling v. State, 610 So.2d. 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)(dicta that trial court correctly overruled defendant’s objection to prosecutor’s question of whether prior felony involved truth or dishonesty); Bobb (indicating that contrary practice- was “preferable”), was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d.637 (Fla.1999); State v. Lee, 531 So.2d 133. (Fla.1988); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).

Affirmed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Addressing the appellant’s primary point on appeal,¹ we agree that it may have been “preferable,” Bobb v. State, 647 So.2d 881, 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), review denied, 659 So.2d 270 (Fla.1995), for the trial court, to have- precluded the prosecutor from inquiring — beyond the admitted fact that the testifying defendant had previous, felony convictions, see § 90.610, Fla. Stat. (2003) — “into whether the felon[ies] involved dishonesty or false statement.” Bobb, 647 So.2d at 883. Nonetheless, the convictions and sentence for grand theft and criminal mischief under review are affirmed because we are convinced that any error which may have been involved, but see Tampling v. State, 610 So.2d. 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)(dicta that trial court correctly overruled defendant’s objection to prosecutor’s question of whether prior felony involved truth or dishonesty); Bobb (indicating that contrary practice- was “preferable”), was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d.637 (Fla.1999); State v. Lee, 531 So.2d 133. (Fla.1988); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

882 So. 2d 523, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13877, 2004 WL 2101896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahariache-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack