Jenkins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jenkins v. State

837 So. 2d 1088, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1818, 2003 WL 354849

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 19, 2003

DocketNo. 3D02-1158

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 837 So. 2d 1088 (Jenkins 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

Jenkins v. State, 837 So. 2d 1088, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1818, 2003 WL 354849 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The sole point raised by the defendant on this appeal from a second degree murder conviction challenges the admission of the following statement of the investigating officer:

When I saw [the defendant], I thought it was supposedly somebody I had dealt with in the past year as a witness or somebody I just come across in the past during the course of a robbery investigation.

Particularly because the officer later stated that he had been mistaken and that he had not previously known Jenkins at all, [1089]*1089we find no error, let alone, as is required because no objection was made below, fundamental error, in this statement. Contrary to the defendant’s argument, there was no harmful implication that Jenkins had even been involved in the prior robbery. See Willis v. State, 669 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Hardie v. State, 513 So.2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), review denied, 520 So.2d 586 (Fla.1988); Periu v. State, 490 So.2d 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). See also Archer v. State, 673 So.2d 17 (Fla.1996)(fundamental error), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 876, 117 S.Ct. 197, 136 L.Ed.2d 134 (1996).

Affirmed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The sole point raised by the defendant on this appeal from a second degree murder conviction challenges the admission of the following statement of the investigating officer:

When I saw [the defendant], I thought it was supposedly somebody I had dealt with in the past year as a witness or somebody I just come across in the past during the course of a robbery investigation.

Particularly because the officer later stated that he had been mistaken and that he had not previously known Jenkins at all, [1089]*1089we find no error, let alone, as is required because no objection was made below, fundamental error, in this statement. Contrary to the defendant’s argument, there was no harmful implication that Jenkins had even been involved in the prior robbery. See Willis v. State, 669 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Hardie v. State, 513 So.2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), review denied, 520 So.2d 586 (Fla.1988); Periu v. State, 490 So.2d 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). See also Archer v. State, 673 So.2d 17 (Fla.1996)(fundamental error), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 876, 117 S.Ct. 197, 136 L.Ed.2d 134 (1996).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

837 So. 2d 1088, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1818, 2003 WL 354849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack