Palmer v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Palmer v. State

920 So. 2d 1153, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1098, 2006 WL 231489

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 1, 2006

DocketNo. 3D04-2244

StatusPublished

This text of 920 So. 2d 1153 (Palmer 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

Palmer v. State, 920 So. 2d 1153, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1098, 2006 WL 231489 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the defendant’s conviction. “The determination of a witness’s qualifications to express an expert opinion is peculiarly within the discretion of the trial judge, whose decision will not be reversed absent a clear showing of error.” Floyd v. State, 913 So.2d 564, 575 (Fla.2005)(quoting Ramirez v. State, 542 So.2d 352, 355 (Fla.1989)). We find that clear error has not been demonstrated in this case. Moreover, there was substantial, independent evidence to support the jury’s verdict, and knowing the substance of the witness’s testimony would not have altered the defense’s preparation of its case. Hence, assuming that there was any error in the admission of the testimony, we find such error to be harmless. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the defendant’s conviction. “The determination of a witness’s qualifications to express an expert opinion is peculiarly within the discretion of the trial judge, whose decision will not be reversed absent a clear showing of error.” Floyd v. State, 913 So.2d 564, 575 (Fla.2005)(quoting Ramirez v. State, 542 So.2d 352, 355 (Fla.1989)). We find that clear error has not been demonstrated in this case. Moreover, there was substantial, independent evidence to support the jury’s verdict, and knowing the substance of the witness’s testimony would not have altered the defense’s preparation of its case. Hence, assuming that there was any error in the admission of the testimony, we find such error to be harmless. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

920 So. 2d 1153, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1098, 2006 WL 231489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack