Legal Opinion

Castillo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 8, 1986No. 83-2527PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

Castillo appeals from his conviction for burglary. We affirm his conviction because we find the claimed error to be harmless.

At trial, Castillo’s defense depended primarily on his credibility. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Castillo if he had any prior felony convictions. See § 90.610, Fla.Stat. (1983). Castillo responded affirmatively. Castillo had only one pri- or felony conviction but the prosecutor never elicited this fact on cross-examination. Instead, he left the jury with, as Castillo contends, a false impression that Castillo had previously been convicted of numerous *1067crimes…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Johnson v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Palmes v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1981
  3. McArthur v. CookSupreme Court of Florida · 1957
  4. Noeling v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1949
  5. Hinton v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1977

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Mott v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API