Woodman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Woodman v. State

331 So. 2d 364, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14165

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 4, 1976

DocketNo. 75-1251

StatusPublished

This text of 331 So. 2d 364 (Woodman 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

Woodman v. State, 331 So. 2d 364, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14165 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Margo Charlotte Woodman, was found guilty by a jury of forgery, uttering a forged instrument and grand larceny. This appeal is from the adjudication and sentence. The proof of appellant’s guilt is overwhelming.

On this appeal, the principal points urge that the appellant did not receive a fair trial because of comments of the state’s attorney and improper cross-examination. This position is apparently an afterthought inasmuch as the defendant failed to object to any of the questions which are now claimed to be improper or to object to the claimed improper comments. We hold that in view of the clear and convincing proof of the defendant’s guilt, as well as her failure to object, she has failed to prove reversible error. See Akin v. State, 86 Fla. 564, 98 So. 609, 612 (1923), and Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1971, 249 So.2d 510.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Margo Charlotte Woodman, was found guilty by a jury of forgery, uttering a forged instrument and grand larceny. This appeal is from the adjudication and sentence. The proof of appellant’s guilt is overwhelming.

On this appeal, the principal points urge that the appellant did not receive a fair trial because of comments of the state’s attorney and improper cross-examination. This position is apparently an afterthought inasmuch as the defendant failed to object to any of the questions which are now claimed to be improper or to object to the claimed improper comments. We hold that in view of the clear and convincing proof of the defendant’s guilt, as well as her failure to object, she has failed to prove reversible error. See Akin v. State, 86 Fla. 564, 98 So. 609, 612 (1923), and Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1971, 249 So.2d 510.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

331 So. 2d 364, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodman-v-state-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack