Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2008

Harmon v. State

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided July 31, 2008 · Browning, Padovano, Polston

987 So. 2d 241; 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 11817; 2008 WL 2915337 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Blane v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

BROWNING, C.J., concurs with separate opinion.

Concurring Opinion

BROWNING, C.J.,

concurring.

I write to make it clear that I concur only because the trial court’s errors were not preserved *. The trial court erred by impermissibly limiting Appellant’s voir dire examination. See Jones v. State, 378 So.2d 797, 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Vining v. State, 637 So.2d 921, 926 (Fla. 1994). And the trial court erred by not permitting Appellant to testify about his intent at the time of the charged offense. See Smith v. State, 357 So.2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) and Crutchfield v. State, 589 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). However, these errors were not preserved by Appellant presenting the issues to the trial court for its consideration. Thus, I concur.

These errors are conceded in Appellee’s brief but affirmance is sought on preservation and harmless error grounds.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.