Case ID: so2d_291/html/0067-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lee Andrew JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 73-464.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    March 8, 1974.
    Edward M. Kay of Varón Stahl & Kay, P. A., Hollywood, for appellant.
    Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Marie Bernard, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

We have carefully considered the points raised on appeal and upon examination of the record are of the opinion that reversible error has not been demonstrated. Although the information contained in the state's bill of particulars was lacking in completeness we cannot conclude that this error or omission injuriously affected the substantial rights of the defendant. However, we would point out somewhat critically that the spirit and intent of Rule 3.-140(n), 33 F.S.A., is not furthered when the state’s response is unduly restrictive. Accordingly, the final judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, MAGER and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.