Breines v. State, 462 So. 2d 831

Lead Opinion

RIYKIND, LEONARD, Associate Judge.

Appellant was convicted of drug trafficking. We conclude from a careful examination of the entire record that a decidedly improper remark by the prosecutor in summation “[Y]ou don’t need fingerprints when you have got eyewitnesses ... and I could have brought in five others ...,” was harmless error because of the overwhelming evidence against appellant. See State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955 (Fla.1984).

The remaining point on appeal concerns the validity of the Florida trafficking statute, § 893.135, Fla. Stat. (1981). It is constitutional. State v. Werner, 402 So.2d 386 (Fla.1981). State v. Benitez, 395 So.2d 514 (Fla.1981).

Affirmed.

HERSEY, J., concurs. LETTS, J., dissents with opinion.

---

Dissenting Opinion

LETTS, Judge,

dissenting.

I dissent, because I believe this decision may be in conflict with Thompson v. State, 318 So.2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Moreover, I am far from convinced it was harmless error.

Case Details

Case Name: Breines v. State

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: Dec 19, 1984

Citations: 462 So. 2d 831; 10 Fla. L. Weekly 50; 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16128; No. 83-1936

Docket Number: No. 83-1936

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.