Lewis v. State

823 So. 2d 260, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 11406, 2002 WL 1800976
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Lewis v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 751 So. 2d 715
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 7, 2002·No. No. 3D01-1691·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jaumon Ramar Lewis appeals his conviction for aggravated assault and resisting an officer without violence. With regard to the challenged juror, when the pertinent voir dire is read in context, we do not think that the juror impermissibly placed a burden on the defendant to introduce evidence. See Gore v. State, 706 So.2d 1328, 1332 (Fla.1997).

On cross-examination of the arresting officer, the arresting officer should have been allowed to testify about whether the crime scene technicians performed a gunshot residue test on defendant-appellant Lewis. See Jones v. State, 399 So.2d 67, 68 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In view of the other evidence in the case, however, we conclude that the error was harmless be[261]*261yond a reasonable doubt. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1138 (Fla.1986).

Affirmed.

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

Lewis v. State, 823 So. 2d 260, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 11406, 2002 WL 1800976 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

823 So. 2d 260 (Lewis v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gore v. State
706 So. 2d 1328 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1997)
State v. DiGuilio
491 So. 2d 1129 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)
Jones v. State
399 So. 2d 67 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)