DEBRA RILEY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Debra Riley was convicted of aggravated battery and grand larceny (a lesser included offense of robbery) and sentenced to concurrent three-year terms. On appeal, she challenged the trial court's evidentiary rulings and jury instructions, but the appellate court found no reversible error and affirmed her conviction.
The trial court committed no reversible error. The officer's reference to the charges was harmless error given the curative instruction provided. The court properly refused to charge the jury on assault with intent to commit robbery because that offense was equal to grand larceny but two steps removed from the primary robbery charge. The denial of the speedy trial motion was proper where a continuance was charged to the defendant, and the court properly excluded irrelevant and collateral evidence.
[1] A reference to charges upon which a defendant was arrested is harmless error when a curative instruction is given by the court.
[2] A court does not err by refusing to include an offense in jury charges on lesser included offenses when that offense is equal to but two steps removed from the charged of…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The reference in the testimony of an arresting officer to the several charges upon which the defendant was arrested was harmless error, in view of the curative instruction given by the court.”
Establishes that the trial court's limiting instruction cured potential prejudice from the officer's reference to dismissed charges.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRiley was charged with multiple crimes including two counts of robbery, aggravated battery, unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a crimin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Speedy Trial Right cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM!
The appellant Debra Riley, defendant below, was charged by information with the crimes of robbery (two counts), aggravated battery, unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense, battery of a law enforcement officer and resisting a law enforcement officer with violence to his person. Defendant pled not guilty, and was tried before a jury on one robbery count and on the count charging aggravated battery. The other charges in the information were dismissed by the State prior to trial. The defendant was found guilty of aggravated battery, and on the robbery count was found guilty of the lesser included offense of grand larceny. Two concurrent three-year sentences were imposed thereon. The defendant appealed.
Upon consideration of the several contentions of error presented by the appellant, in the light of the record, briefs and argument, we hold no reversible error has been shown.
The reference in the testimony of an arresting officer to the several charges upon which the defendant was arrested was harmless error, in view of the curative instruction given by the court. It was not error to deny defendant’s motion for mistrial. Williams v. State, 327 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Warren v. State, 270 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1972); Burkhead v. State, 206 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Perry v. State, 146 Fla. 187, 200 So. 525, 527 (1941).
On authority of State v. Abreau, 363 So. 2d 1063 (Fla.1978), we hold the court did not commit error by refusing to include in the jury charges on lesser included offenses, the offense of assault with intent to commit robbery. The court charged the jury on robbery and on the lesser included offenses of attempted robbery, grand larceny and petty larceny. On the robbery count, the defendant was found guilty of the lesser offense of grand larceny, of which the offense of assault with intent to commit robbery was equal, but which, as was grand larceny, was two steps removed.
The court properly denied defendant’s motion for dismissal under the speedy trial rule, where a continuance properly had been charged to the defendant. No undue limit was placed on the defendant, as to presentation of evidence. The court did not abuse discretion by not permitting excursion into irrelevant and collateral issues.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
COX v. State, 819 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 2002)…y in cases of absolute necessity.”). The trial court properly addressed the situation presented by giving the jury a proper curative instruction and proceeding with the trial. See Jackson v. State, 702 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Riley v. State, 367 So. 2d 1091, 1092 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979). As the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defense’s motion for a mistrial here, see Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537, 546 (Fla.1999) (“a trial court’s ruling on a motion for mistrial is subject to an a…
-
Williams v. State, 438 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…lf was sufficient to cure any error. See, e.g., Warren v. State, 270 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1972) (testimony of witness that defendant was in a “boy’s school” was not prejudicial error, where court instructed jury to disregard the testimony); Riley v. State, 367 So. 2d 1091 (Fla.3d DCA 1979) (reference in testimony by police officer to the several charges for which the defendant was arrested rendered harmless by curative instruction to jury); Flowers v. State, 351 So. 2d 764 (Fla.3d DCA 1977) (trial court did not err i…
-
Monnit Louis v. State, 567 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…eover, assuming that the incidents of which the defendant complains were error, the error was harmless in view of the explicit curative instruction given by the court and the overwhelming evidence presented against the defendant. See Riley v. State, 367 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Williams v. State, 327 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Frazier v. State, 303 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 363 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1978)
- Perry v. State, 146 Fla. 187 (Fla. 1941)
- Burkhead v. State, 206 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Warren v. State, 270 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1972)
- Williams v. State, 327 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)