Acosta v. State
Acosta v. State
599 So. 2d 284; 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6644; 1992 WL 123428
(Southern Reporter, Second Series)
Acosta v. State
Opinion of the Court
We affirm defendant’s convictions for possession of marijuana and cocaine. Defendant did not preserve for review the trial court’s failure to declare a mistrial, see Riechmann v. State, 581 So.2d 133 (Fla. 1991), or its failure to give the agreed upon cautionary instruction. Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701, 703 (Fla. 1978); Crespo v. State, 505 So.2d 685 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Furthermore, the record does not disclose that the prosecutor’s question constituted fundamental error. See Woodard v. State, 579 So.2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.