Case Name: Phillip MARSHALL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1999-05-05
Citations: 731 So. 2d 165
Docket Number: No. 97-2743
Parties: Phillip MARSHALL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee,
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and JORGENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 731
Pages: 165–165

Head Matter:
Phillip MARSHALL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee,
No. 97-2743.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 5, 1999.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and John E. Morrison, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Barbara A. Zappi (Fort Lauder-dale), Assistant Attorney General, for ap-pellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and JORGENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
A new trial is required in this case because of a manifest, plainly harmful violation, over the preserved objections of defense counsel, of the principles stated in Brown v. State, 719 So.2d 882 (Fla.1998) and Rios v. State, 730 So.2d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)[24 FLW D937], both of which were decided after the trial. See also State v. Emmund, 698 So.2d 1318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). The other points raised by the appellant have no merit.
Reversed.