Fordham v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fordham v. State

683 So. 2d 1157, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13064, 1996 WL 714078

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Fordham v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3153 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 13, 1996·No. No. 96-339·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The assistant state attorney who tried this case committed multiple improprieties during his closing argument. Trial judges who observe this conduct should bring to the offending lawyer’s attention that it is disapproved. Defense counsel did object to certain of the comments and objections were sustained. No mistrial was sought. Those improper comments not objected to do not reach the level of fundamental error.

AFFIRMED.

PETERSON, C.J., and GRIFFIN and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The assistant state attorney who tried this case committed multiple improprieties during his closing argument. Trial judges who observe this conduct should bring to the offending lawyer’s attention that it is disapproved. Defense counsel did object to certain of the comments and objections were sustained. No mistrial was sought. Those improper comments not objected to do not reach the level of fundamental error.

AFFIRMED.

PETERSON, C.J., and GRIFFIN and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

Fordham v. State, 683 So. 2d 1157, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13064, 1996 WL 714078 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

683 So. 2d 1157 (Fordham v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.