MELVIN DOUGLAS SAYAN, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Melvin Sayan appeals his first-degree murder conviction, challenging the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and claiming trial court errors regarding jury instructions, crime scene viewing, and multiple mistrials. The appellate court affirms the conviction, finding the evidence adequate and no reversible error in the trial court's rulings.
The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the circumstantial evidence was adequate to sustain the jury verdict; the trial court properly gave the Allen charge and any objection was waived by appellant's failure to object; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the crime scene viewing; and the trial court properly denied dismissal despite two prior mistrials, as a defendant may be retried after a mistrial absent claims of impropriety or prejudice to trial preparation.
[1] Circumstantial evidence is adequate to sustain a jury verdict and a trial court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal.
[2] Failure to object to a jury instruction waives any objection to that instruction.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“although we agree that the state's case was principally based on circumstantial evidence, we find the evidence is adequate to sustain the verdict of the jury and the ruling of the trial court in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal”
Establishes the court's standard for reviewing sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in murder convictions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSayan was convicted of first-degree murder based primarily on circumstantial evidence presented at trial. The case proceeded to trial three times afte…
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 Allen Charge cases and more on FLexlaw
ANSTEAD, Judge.
This appeal is from a judgment of conviction for first degree murder. The appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and claims the trial court erred in several other respects during the course of his trial.
We have reviewed the entire record including the transcripts of testimony presented at trial; and, although we agree that the state’s case was principally based on circumstantial evidence, we find the evidence is adequate to sustain the verdict of the jury and the ruling of the trial court in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal. Cooper v. Wainwright, 308 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Duran v. State, 301 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
Appellant also claims error by the trial court in giving an Allen or “dynamite” charge.1 However, we find the record supports the trial court’s action in giving the charge and further find that the failure to object waived any objection appellant may have had to the instruction. As to the claim of error by the trial court in denying appellant’s motion to allow the jury to view the scene where the victim’s body was found, we also find no abuse of discretion and again find no objection by the appellant to the trial court’s statements to the jury concerning the reason for the denial of the motion.
Finally, we find no error by the trial court in failing to dismiss the case because there had been two previous mistrials which occurred when prior juries were discharged due to their inability to reach a verdict. After a mistrial, a case stands as if it had never been, tried and the defendant is subject to being tried again on the same charge. Smith v. State, 135 Fla. 835, 186 So. 203 (1939); State v. Dowling, 91 Fla. 236, 107 So. 267 (1926). There is no claim here as to the propriety of the prior mistrials nor any claim of prejudice by reason thereof insofar as the appellant’s ability to prepare for trial and defend the charges asserted. In the absence of such circumstances the appellant is not entitled to be discharged simply because he must undergo the ordeal of a third trial.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and the issues raised by appellant and finding no reversible error, the judgment and sentence of the trial court are hereby affirmed.
DOWNEY, C. J., and MOORE, J., concur. . Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct.154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Orestes Rodriguez v. State, 462 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Lee v. State, 239 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 240 So. 2d 642 (Fla.1970). In support of its second position the state relies upon Tejeda-Bermudez v. State, 427 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Sayan v. State, 381 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); and Armstrong v. State, 364 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 373 So. 2d 456 (Fla.1979). The state’s reliance upon these eases is misplaced. Armstrong holds that the giving of an approved deadlock instruction before…
-
Warren v. State, 498 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…d at 139. Generally speaking, an objection is required in these cases in order to preserve for appellate review the propriety of a trial court’s “Allen” charge, see, e.g., Tejeda-Bermudez v. State, 427 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Sayan v. State, 381 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Armstrong v. State, 364 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 373 So. 2d 456 (Fla.1979), although in some of the cases which have reversed convictions, there is no mention of a proper objection to the “Allen” charge in…
-
State v. Sherrod, 383 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…trial occurs there is no “formal jeopardy” to bar subsequent prosecution for the same offense. Smith v. State, supra. This is true even in the event of three mistrials. State v. Dowling, 91 Fla. 236, 107 So. 267 (1926). As we said in Sayan v. State, 381 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980): After a mistrial, a case stands as if it had never been tried and the defendant is subject to being tried again on the same charge. Conceding as we have that the order under review goes beyond a simple declaration of mistrial…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (U.S. 1896)
- Smith v. State, 135 Fla. 835 (Fla. 1939)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. v. Dowling, 91 Fla. 236 (Fla. 1926)
- Cooper v. Louie L. Wainwright, 308 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Duran v. State, 301 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)