Arrieta v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Arrieta v. State

947 So. 2d 625, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 392, 2007 WL 101992

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 17, 2007·No. No. 3D05-551·Published

Opinion

ON MOTION TO CLARIFY COURT’S OPINION-GRANTED

PER CURIAM.

The motion to clarify the court’s opinion is granted. The opinion filed in this cause on November 22, 2006, is hereby withdrawn, and we issue the following clarified opinion in its place.

Affirmed. The one-time comment by the prosecutor during closing argument that the detective and the sergeant would [626]*626not risk their careers to frame the defendant did not rise to the level of fundamental error, which must “reach down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.” Farina v. State, 937 So.2d 612, 629 (Fla.2006).

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

ON MOTION TO CLARIFY COURT’S OPINION-GRANTED

PER CURIAM.

The motion to clarify the court’s opinion is granted. The opinion filed in this cause on November 22, 2006, is hereby withdrawn, and we issue the following clarified opinion in its place.

Affirmed. The one-time comment by the prosecutor during closing argument that the detective and the sergeant would [626]*626not risk their careers to frame the defendant did not rise to the level of fundamental error, which must “reach down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.” Farina v. State, 937 So.2d 612, 629 (Fla.2006).

Arrieta v. State, 947 So. 2d 625, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 392, 2007 WL 101992 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

947 So. 2d 625 (Arrieta v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related