Holcomb v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Holcomb v. State

760 So. 2d 1097, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8040, 2000 WL 826680

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 28, 2000

DocketNo. 3D99-766

StatusPublished

This text of 760 So. 2d 1097 (Holcomb 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

Holcomb v. State, 760 So. 2d 1097, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8040, 2000 WL 826680 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court’s failure to instruct the jury as to an essential element of the crime of sexual battery, lack of consent, which was the primary disputed issue at the trial, constituted fundamental error which, even in the absence of objection below, requires reversal of the appellant’s conviction of that crime and a new trial. See Palazzolo v. State, 754 So.2d 731 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Harrison v. State, 743 So.2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), and cases cited.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court’s failure to instruct the jury as to an essential element of the crime of sexual battery, lack of consent, which was the primary disputed issue at the trial, constituted fundamental error which, even in the absence of objection below, requires reversal of the appellant’s conviction of that crime and a new trial. See Palazzolo v. State, 754 So.2d 731 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Harrison v. State, 743 So.2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), and cases cited.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

760 So. 2d 1097, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8040, 2000 WL 826680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holcomb-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack