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

Blackman v. State

279 So. 2d 99
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 12, 1973·No. 72-1418·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

279 So.2d 99 (1973)

Edward BLACKMAN, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1418.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 12, 1973.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender and John Lipinski, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William L. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

On appeal from conviction of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug and a barbiturate the appellant contends the judgment should be reversed because of a remark made by the prosecutor in closing argument. An objection made thereto at trial by defendant's counsel was sustained by the court. Considered in light of the evidence in the case the challenged remark of the prosecutor did not constitute harmful error. Under § 924.33 it is provided that a judgment should not be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion after examination of all of the appeal papers that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. See Cornelius v. State, Fla. 1950, 49 So.2d 332.

Affirmed.

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

Blackman v. State, 279 So. 2d 99 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

279 So. 2d 99 (Blackman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Powers v. State
369 So. 2d 640 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
Brown v. State
351 So. 2d 1146 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
D'AGOSTINO v. State
334 So. 2d 99 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)
Soto v. State
325 So. 2d 414 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)
Whitehead v. State
279 So. 2d 99 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1973)