Hamilton v. State
554 So. 2d 15, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2916, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7007, 1989 WL 149635
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hamilton v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 573 So. 2d 109 →
Opinion
Neither of the issues presented on appeal, the failure to give an instruction on the intoxication defense and the state’s pursuit of an allegedly prejudicial line of testimony and argument, was preserved in any respect below. Since we find that these grounds do not involve fundamental error, see Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956 (Fla.1981); Wasko v. State, 505 So.2d 1314 (Fla.1987), reversal may not be predicated upon them.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hamilton v. State, 554 So. 2d 15, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2916, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7007, 1989 WL 149635 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).
554 So. 2d 15 (Hamilton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Wasko v. State
505 So. 2d 1314 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)
Ray v. State
403 So. 2d 956 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1981)