Case ID: so2d_554/html/0015-01.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

Douglas C. HAMILTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 88-2965.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Dec. 12, 1989.
    Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Thomas F. Nealon III, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Julie S. Thornton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
    Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and COPE, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Neither of the issues presented on appeal, the failure to give an instruction on the intoxication defense and the state’s pursuit of an allegedly prejudicial line of testimony and argument, was preserved in any respect below. Since we find that these grounds do not involve fundamental error, see Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956 (Fla.1981); Wasko v. State, 505 So.2d 1314 (Fla.1987), reversal may not be predicated upon them.

Affirmed.