Jones v. State

555 So. 2d 406, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2916, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7000
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Jones v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1914
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 12, 1989·No. Nos. 88-2940, 89-306·Published

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

There is no harmful error relating to the conviction of the appellant McGill. The judgment with respect to the appellant Jones, however, is reversed for a new trial because of the clearly harmful and impermissible testimony of the investigating detective that he included Jones’s photo in a photographic display “[bjecause I thought he was a suspect in the case.” See Fulmore v. State, 483 So.2d 765 (Fla. 4th DCA [407]*4071986); Molina v. State, 406 So.2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). See generally Postell v. State, 398 So.2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 411 So.2d 384 (Fla.1981).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

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

Jones v. State, 555 So. 2d 406, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2916, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7000 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

555 So. 2d 406 (Jones v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Molina v. State
406 So. 2d 57 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Postell v. State
398 So. 2d 851 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Fulmore v. State
483 So. 2d 765 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)