Gilling v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gilling v. State

443 So. 2d 1024, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25164

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 15, 1983

DocketNo. 82-1517

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 443 So. 2d 1024 (Gilling 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 So. 2d 1024, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilling-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack