Tarpley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tarpley v. State

477 So. 2d 63, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2429, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16492

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 29, 1985

DocketNo. 84-2035

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 477 So. 2d 63 (Tarpley 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

Tarpley v. State, 477 So. 2d 63, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2429, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16492 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment and sentence from which the defendant appeals are affirmed upon a holding that: 1) the trial court’s error in refusing to allow the defendant to question the witness as to criminal convictions in Cuba, see Alvarez v. State, 467 So.2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), and the prosecutor’s improper comment as to sending the defendants a message, see Boatwright v. State, 452 So.2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), were harmless error in view of the overwhelming evidence against the defendant, see Bertolotti v. State, 476 So.2d 130 (Fla.1985); State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955 (Fla.1984), and 2) the prosecutor’s comment in closing argument was proper to refer to the evidence as it existed before the jury and to point out that there was an absence of evidence on a certain issue, White v. State, 377 So.2d 1149 (Fla.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 845, 101 S.Ct. 129, 66 L.Ed.2d 54 (1980); Garcia v. State, 439 So.2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Gains v. State, 417 So.2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 426 So.2d 26 (Fla.1983).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment and sentence from which the defendant appeals are affirmed upon a holding that: 1) the trial court’s error in refusing to allow the defendant to question the witness as to criminal convictions in Cuba, see Alvarez v. State, 467 So.2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), and the prosecutor’s improper comment as to sending the defendants a message, see Boatwright v. State, 452 So.2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), were harmless error in view of the overwhelming evidence against the defendant, see Bertolotti v. State, 476 So.2d 130 (Fla.1985); State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955 (Fla.1984), and 2) the prosecutor’s comment in closing argument was proper to refer to the evidence as it existed before the jury and to point out that there was an absence of evidence on a certain issue, White v. State, 377 So.2d 1149 (Fla.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 845, 101 S.Ct. 129, 66 L.Ed.2d 54 (1980); Garcia v. State, 439 So.2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Gains v. State, 417 So.2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 426 So.2d 26 (Fla.1983).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

477 So. 2d 63, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2429, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tarpley-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack