Pierre v. State
585 So. 2d 510, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9768, 1991 WL 186971
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Pierre v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 597 So. 2d 853 →
Opinion
Affirmed. As to point I, see Antone v. State, 382 So.2d 1205, 1212-1213 (Fla.1980). As to point II see Thomas v. State, 584 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). As to point III, the objection to testimony concerning collateral crimes was not preserved and was cumulative in any event. As to point IY, we find that the prosecutor’s comments were either not objectionable or not so egregious that without proper objection constituted fundamental error. As to point [511]*511V regarding taxation of costs, see State v. Beasley, 580 So.2d 139 (Fla.1991).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pierre v. State, 585 So. 2d 510, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9768, 1991 WL 186971 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).
585 So. 2d 510 (Pierre v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Thomas v. State
584 So. 2d 1022 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Antone v. State
382 So. 2d 1205 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1980)
State v. Beasley
580 So. 2d 139 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1991)