Gilling v. State

443 So. 2d 1024, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25164
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 15, 1983·No. No. 82-1517·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State made a prima facie showing sufficient to withstand defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, • so we find no error in the denial of that motion. See Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla.1981). Neither was there any objection to the introduction of certain State’s evidence which appellant now contends was erroneously admitted. Appellant contends also that there was prosecutorial misconduct such as to destroy his fundamental right to a fair trial, but there was no objection at all to any of the prosecutor’s comments now complained of, nor did appellant file a motion for new trial. Therefore none of these matters now complained of have been preserved for appeal. The judgment of conviction must therefore be

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, C.J., COWART, J., and WATSON, Associate Judge, concur.

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

Gilling v. State, 443 So. 2d 1024, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25164 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

443 So. 2d 1024 (Gilling v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Quinn v. State
662 So. 2d 947 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Cordero v. State
589 So. 2d 407 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)