Corbin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Corbin v. State

259 So. 2d 543, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 7135

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 21, 1972

DocketNo. 71-1048

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 259 So. 2d 543 (Corbin 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

Corbin v. State, 259 So. 2d 543, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 7135 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was tried before a jury for the crime of murder in the second degree. He was found guilty by the jury, adjudicated guilty, and sentenced. On this appeal, the only substantial question presented is whether the trial court committed prejudicial error when it failed to sustain appellant’s objection to an improper question. We hold that the alleged error is not supported by a proper assignment of error; we have examined the record and find that it is free of prejudicial error.

The appellant, while being cross-examined, was improperly asked if he had been arrested for carrying a gun. Lockwood v. State, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 770. An objection to the question was made and was overruled. Appellant then answered the question in the negative.

The alleged error is not reached under the general assignment of error that, “The court erred in overruling the various objections made by defendant’s attorney during the trial.” Redditt v. State, Fla.1955, 84 So.2d 317. See also Roberts v. State, 94 Fla. 149, 113 So. 726 (1927). We further hold that the error was harmless in that the arrest was denied by the witness (appellant) and it conclusively appears from the record that the improper question could not have impaired appellant’s right to a fair trial. Smith v. State, Fla.App.1968, 217 So.2d 359.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was tried before a jury for the crime of murder in the second degree. He was found guilty by the jury, adjudicated guilty, and sentenced. On this appeal, the only substantial question presented is whether the trial court committed prejudicial error when it failed to sustain appellant’s objection to an improper question. We hold that the alleged error is not supported by a proper assignment of error; we have examined the record and find that it is free of prejudicial error.

The appellant, while being cross-examined, was improperly asked if he had been arrested for carrying a gun. Lockwood v. State, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 770. An objection to the question was made and was overruled. Appellant then answered the question in the negative.

The alleged error is not reached under the general assignment of error that, “The court erred in overruling the various objections made by defendant’s attorney during the trial.” Redditt v. State, Fla.1955, 84 So.2d 317. See also Roberts v. State, 94 Fla. 149, 113 So. 726 (1927). We further hold that the error was harmless in that the arrest was denied by the witness (appellant) and it conclusively appears from the record that the improper question could not have impaired appellant’s right to a fair trial. Smith v. State, Fla.App.1968, 217 So.2d 359.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 So. 2d 543, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 7135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corbin-v-state-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack