Skip to main content

Lucas v. State

Citations

  • 568 So. 2d 18
  • 1990 WL 141432

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • \A proffer is necessary to preserve a claim such as this because an appellate court will not otherwise speculate about the admissibility of such evidence.\
  • prosecutor's jury argument that mitigation of no significant prior history of criminal conduct should be rejected because of *Page 1258 contemporaneous criminal conduct in violation of Scull was not fundamental error
  • proffer necessary to preserve claim because appellate court will not otherwise speculate about admissibility of evidence
  • victim's drug use was not relevant in penalty phase of capital trial
  • proffer necessary to preserve claim that trial court improperly excluded testimony

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

66 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

37 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.