Ingram v. State
580 So. 2d 896, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6305, 1991 WL 104658
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 19, 1991·No. No. 90-1093·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence. Although we agree with appellant that the trial court erred in allowing a prosecution witness to be impeached, we find such error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. DiGuilio, 491 [897]*897So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Our conclusion is mainly predicated upon the admission of other substantial evidence concerning the witness’ prior identification of the appellant as his assailant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ingram v. State, 580 So. 2d 896, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6305, 1991 WL 104658 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).
580 So. 2d 896 (Ingram v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
E.B. v. State
724 So. 2d 140 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
In Interest of Bm
580 So. 2d 896 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)