Mattison v. State
Mattison v. State
87 So. 3d 1290; 2012 WL 1959331; 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8814
(Southern Reporter, Third Series)
Mattison v. State
Opinion of the Court
AFFIRMED.
Concurring Opinion
concurring.
While I concur in affirmance, I note that the prosecutor’s arguments to the jury raise a number of significant concerns that might otherwise result in reversal but for the lack of full and timely objections. The totality of these arguments, which push fundamental error analysis to the brink, unnecessarily injected potential legal error in this case for no valid purpose. Affir-mance in this case does not condone the arguments at issue; it is required only because the fundamental error threshold was ascended but not reached.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.