Williams v. State

865 So. 2d 637, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 1322, 2004 WL 305996
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 11, 2004·No. No. 3D02-11·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal recurs upon a mandate issued by the Supreme Court of Florida on December 11, 2003. We vacate the harmless error analysis portion of our previous opinion, recorded at 834 So.2d 923, and conform in all respects to the opinion of the Supreme Court recorded at 863 So.2d 1189 (Fla.2003). As directed by that opinion and mandate we now apply the principles announced in Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537 (Fla.1999), and State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986), and reconsider this matter under the DiGuilio harmless error standard.

Accordingly, we hereby affirm the conviction and sentence under review finding that, although the trial court abused its discretion in not permitting the defense to elicit the fact that Hunt had been expelled from the police explorers, there was no [638]*638reasonable possibility that this error affected the verdict. We therefore, affirm.

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

Williams v. State, 865 So. 2d 637, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 1322, 2004 WL 305996 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

865 So. 2d 637 (Williams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lott v. State
865 So. 2d 637 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)