Jansenson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jansenson v. State

656 So. 2d 586, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6722, 1995 WL 366714

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 21, 1995

DocketNos. 95-110, 94-2122

StatusPublished

This text of 656 So. 2d 586 (Jansenson 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

Jansenson v. State, 656 So. 2d 586, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6722, 1995 WL 366714 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURLAM.

By these consolidated appeals we review a conviction and sentence of contracting without a license and a subsequent order of restitution. We reverse for several reasons. First, the inappropriate comments in opening statement by the state that the defendant was a “career criminal”, Henry v. State, 629 So.2d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Finklea v. State, 471 So.2d 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Glassman v. State, 377 So.2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), second, on the use of hearsay evidence, Trotman v. State, 652 So.2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), third, in permitting legal conclusions to be advanced by unqualified witnesses, Gurganus v. State, 451 So.2d 817 (Fla.1984), fourth, in permitting introduction into evidence a document which constituted an opinion that the defendant was guilty, Glendening v. State, 536 So.2d 212 (Fla.1988) cert. denied, 492 U.S. 907, 109 S.Ct. 3219,106 L.Ed.2d 569 (1989), fifth, in failing to properly instruct the jury on the definition of a roofing contractor, see Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915 (Fla.1953), and lastly, in the order [587]*587of restitution (which the state concedes was error). Therefore we return the matter to the trial court for a new trial.

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

PER CURLAM.

By these consolidated appeals we review a conviction and sentence of contracting without a license and a subsequent order of restitution. We reverse for several reasons. First, the inappropriate comments in opening statement by the state that the defendant was a “career criminal”, Henry v. State, 629 So.2d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Finklea v. State, 471 So.2d 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Glassman v. State, 377 So.2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), second, on the use of hearsay evidence, Trotman v. State, 652 So.2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), third, in permitting legal conclusions to be advanced by unqualified witnesses, Gurganus v. State, 451 So.2d 817 (Fla.1984), fourth, in permitting introduction into evidence a document which constituted an opinion that the defendant was guilty, Glendening v. State, 536 So.2d 212 (Fla.1988) cert. denied, 492 U.S. 907, 109 S.Ct. 3219,106 L.Ed.2d 569 (1989), fifth, in failing to properly instruct the jury on the definition of a roofing contractor, see Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915 (Fla.1953), and lastly, in the order [587]*587of restitution (which the state concedes was error). Therefore we return the matter to the trial court for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

656 So. 2d 586, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6722, 1995 WL 366714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jansenson-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack