Brown v. State

404 So. 2d 861, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21274
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Brown v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 371 So. 2d 161
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 16, 1981·No. No. ZZ-390·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has raised two points in this appeal from his conviction of sexual battery. We affirm as to both.

In Point I, appellant asserts that the trial court violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410 in giving the jury an additional instruction, upon the jury’s tender of a question, without prior consultation with the parties’ attorneys. However, although defense counsel at trial objected to the instruction on other grounds after the jury returned to the jury room, he did not raise the Rule 3.410 objection which is raised on appeal. Point I, therefore, has not been properly preserved for review on appeal. Compare Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701 (Fla.1978).

As his second point, appellant contends that a prosecutorial comment in closing argument requires reversal. The prosecutor’s comment was not of such a prejudicial nature as to mandate reversal.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.

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

Brown v. State, 404 So. 2d 861, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21274 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

404 So. 2d 861 (Brown v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Castor v. State
365 So. 2d 701 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1978)