Case Name: James W. HOLT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-11-29
Citations: 422 So. 2d 1018
Docket Number: No. AH-150
Parties: James W. HOLT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 422
Pages: 1018–1019

Head Matter:
James W. HOLT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. AH-150.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Nov. 29, 1982.
Michael Allen, Public Defender, Glenna Joyce Reeves, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., David P. Gauldin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Opinion:
MILLS, Judge.
Holt, an indigent defendant, appeals his conviction for burglary and grand theft and the trial court's imposition of costs upon him. We affirm.
Holt contends that the trial court erred in permitting the State's expert witness to respond to a hypothetical question which assumed facts which were not yet in evidence. This contention is without merit because sufficient facts to form the basis of the hypothetical question were established later in the trial.
It also was not error for the trial court to refuse to charge the jury separately on circumstantial evidence. Walker v. State, 414 So.2d 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
There was no reversible error in the imposition of costs. Jenkins v. State, 422 So.2d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.