Marshall v. State
731 So. 2d 165, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5672, 1999 WL 270397
Opinion
A new trial is required in this case because of a manifest, plainly harmful violation, over the preserved objections of defense counsel, of the principles stated in Brown v. State, 719 So.2d 882 (Fla.1998) and Rios v. State, 730 So.2d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)[24 FLW D937], both of which were decided after the trial. See also State v. Emmund, 698 So.2d 1318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). The other points raised by the appellant have no merit.
Reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Marshall v. State, 731 So. 2d 165, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5672, 1999 WL 270397 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).
731 So. 2d 165 (Marshall v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Marshall v. State
796 So. 2d 631 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)