¶1The judgments of conviction and sentences under review are affirmed upon a holding that the substance of the improperly admitted criminal convictions of the defendant herein had already been properly placed before the jury upon the state’s cross-examination of the defendant’s character witnesses herein. As such, we think the evidence error here was harmless under the circumstances of this case. Culberson v. State, 210 So.2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 218 So.2d 171 (Fla. 1968). §§ 59.041, 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1981); see also Cornelius v. State, 49 So.2d 332 (Fla.1950); Sias v. State, 416 So.2d 1213, 1217-18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), pet. for rev. den., 424 So.2d 763 (Fla.1982).
443 So. 2d 185
Holcomb v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided December 13, 1983
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1983-12-13
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1985
1 state decisions
Relies on 424 So. 2d 758 - Hicks v. State · 49 So. 2d 332 - Cornelius v. State · Sias v. State
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1983-12-13
View the full empirical analysis of this case →