Lampkin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lampkin v. State

711 So. 2d 181, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5267, 1998 WL 236270

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 13, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2450

StatusPublished

This text of 711 So. 2d 181 (Lampkin 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

Lampkin v. State, 711 So. 2d 181, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5267, 1998 WL 236270 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant complains that the trial court erred in charging the jury on the elements of aggravated battery. Appellant’s counsel did not object to the instruction given. Thus, the error was not preserved and is procedurally barred. See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (1997).

While appellant claims the instruction given was fundamentally erroneous, the court [182]*182read the standard instruction, and -with respect to the alternative elements of proof of the crime of aggravated battery, the court properly instructed the jury in the disjunctive. This latter factor distinguishes this case from Priestley v. State, 587 So.2d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). There is not even prejudicial error, let alone fundamental error, in the instruction which the court read.

Affirm.

WARNER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant complains that the trial court erred in charging the jury on the elements of aggravated battery. Appellant’s counsel did not object to the instruction given. Thus, the error was not preserved and is procedurally barred. See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (1997).

While appellant claims the instruction given was fundamentally erroneous, the court [182]*182read the standard instruction, and -with respect to the alternative elements of proof of the crime of aggravated battery, the court properly instructed the jury in the disjunctive. This latter factor distinguishes this case from Priestley v. State, 587 So.2d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). There is not even prejudicial error, let alone fundamental error, in the instruction which the court read.

Affirm.

WARNER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

711 So. 2d 181, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5267, 1998 WL 236270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lampkin-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.