Kuljis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kuljis v. State

110 So. 3d 969, 2013 WL 1316446, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5334

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 3, 2013

DocketNo. 4D10-2780

StatusPublished

This text of 110 So. 3d 969 (Kuljis 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

Kuljis v. State, 110 So. 3d 969, 2013 WL 1316446, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5334 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Daniel Kuljis, appeals his conviction and sentence for second-degree murder. Appellant presents three issues for our review: (1) that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal and request for entry of a judgment for manslaughter, (2) that the trial court erred in refusing to give appellant’s special jury instruction on manslaughter, and (3) that the prosecutor’s closing argument was so egregious that appellant was deprived of a fair trial. After careful review of the record, we find all of appellant’s arguments to be without merit. Consequently, we affirm appellant’s second-degree murder conviction.

Affirmed.

POLEN, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Daniel Kuljis, appeals his conviction and sentence for second-degree murder. Appellant presents three issues for our review: (1) that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal and request for entry of a judgment for manslaughter, (2) that the trial court erred in refusing to give appellant’s special jury instruction on manslaughter, and (3) that the prosecutor’s closing argument was so egregious that appellant was deprived of a fair trial. After careful review of the record, we find all of appellant’s arguments to be without merit. Consequently, we affirm appellant’s second-degree murder conviction.

Affirmed.

POLEN, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 So. 3d 969, 2013 WL 1316446, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kuljis-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.