Meyers v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Meyers v. State

561 So. 2d 1304, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3798, 1990 WL 70511

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 29, 1990

DocketNo. 89-2025

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 561 So. 2d 1304 (Meyers 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

Meyers v. State, 561 So. 2d 1304, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3798, 1990 WL 70511 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

GERSTEN, Judge.

Appellant, Maurice Meyers, appeals his conviction and sentence for attempted burglary. We reverse and remand.

Appellant’s main contention is that the prosecutor’s conduct during his trial was objectionable and amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. The State concedes that the prosecutor exceeded all permissible bounds by repeatedly asking the defendant about the details of his prior convictions. See § 90.610, Fla.Stat. (1989); Jackson v. State, 498 So.2d 906 (Fla.1986); Fulton v. State, 335 So.2d 280 (Fla.1976).

We find that such an improper attack on the defendant’s character deprived him of a fair trial and constitutes reversible error. See Wilt v. State, 410 So.2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

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

GERSTEN, Judge.

Appellant, Maurice Meyers, appeals his conviction and sentence for attempted burglary. We reverse and remand.

Appellant’s main contention is that the prosecutor’s conduct during his trial was objectionable and amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. The State concedes that the prosecutor exceeded all permissible bounds by repeatedly asking the defendant about the details of his prior convictions. See § 90.610, Fla.Stat. (1989); Jackson v. State, 498 So.2d 906 (Fla.1986); Fulton v. State, 335 So.2d 280 (Fla.1976).

We find that such an improper attack on the defendant’s character deprived him of a fair trial and constitutes reversible error. See Wilt v. State, 410 So.2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

561 So. 2d 1304, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3798, 1990 WL 70511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyers-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack