Osorio v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Osorio v. State

769 So. 2d 429, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11695, 2000 WL 1283814

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Osorio v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 746 So. 2d 490 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 13, 2000·No. No. 4D99-1249·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence. Any error which may have been occasioned by the court’s failure to include the word “knowingly” when instructing the jury on the elements of appellant’s offense¹ was not presented by a contemporaneous request for such inclusion, nor any objection once the instruction was given. See Lawson v. State, 552 So.2d 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

POLEN, FARMER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence. Any error which may have been occasioned by the court’s failure to include the word “knowingly” when instructing the jury on the elements of appellant’s offense¹ was not presented by a contemporaneous request for such inclusion, nor any objection once the instruction was given. See Lawson v. State, 552 So.2d 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

POLEN, FARMER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Osorio v. State, 769 So. 2d 429, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11695, 2000 WL 1283814 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

769 So. 2d 429 (Osorio v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related