Ingram v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ingram v. State

580 So. 2d 896, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6305, 1991 WL 104658

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 19, 1991

DocketNo. 90-1093

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 580 So. 2d 896 (Ingram 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

Ingram v. State, 580 So. 2d 896, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6305, 1991 WL 104658 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

HERSEY, C.J., and ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

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.

HERSEY, C.J., and ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

580 So. 2d 896, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6305, 1991 WL 104658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingram-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack