RONNIE WILLIAMS, 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.
The court held that any prejudice from police testimony about a misplaced photograph was cured by immediate explanation and overwhelming evidence of guilt.
[1] Prejudicial testimony is rendered harmless when the witness immediately clarifies the statement and explains that the defendant was not a suspect in another investigation…
[2] A jury's potential inference that a defendant has prior criminal history from the use of their photograph in a lineup is curable by a jury 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 intelligenceThe defendant moved for a mistrial when a police officer testified that a photograph used in a lineup was unavailable because it was "used in another …
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 Photographic Lineup cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
Williams’ sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial occasioned by the testimony of a police officer, during direct examination by the State, that a photograph of the defendant which the victim of the robbery had identified in a photo lineup was not available at trial because it had been “used in another investigation” and had been misplaced. We reject Williams’ contention and affirm his convictions upon a holding that (1) any prejudice to the defendant arising from the possible suggestion in the testimony that the defendant was a suspect in another crime was completely dissipated by the officer’s immediate explanation to the jury that Williams was not a suspect in the other investigation and that his photograph was used simply as “a filler” for a photographic line-up,1 see Hernandez v. State, 323 So. 2d 318 (Fla.3d DCA 1975) (court correctly denied defendant’s motion for mistrial based on statement by witness that the defendant “was arrested by the federal ...” where witness clarified that the arrest mentioned was for the charges for which defendant was on trial); see also Wallace v. State, 221 So. 2d 759 (Fla.3d DCA 1969) (error in admitting arguably objectionable testimony cured by the court’s subsequent explanation to the jury); (2) assuming, arguendo, that a jury might infer from the fact that a photograph of the defendant was shown to the victim that the photograph came from police files, “that does not necessarily convey to a jury that [the] defendant has committed prior crimes or has previously been in trouble with the police,” and a jury instruction to that effect, had one been requested, which here it was not, would cure any error, Evans v. State, 422 So. 2d 60, 61 (Fla.3d DCA 1982); Moore v. State, 418 So. 2d 435, 436 (Fla.3d DCA 1982); and (3) in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt,2 any undissipated prejudice arising from the police officer’s testimony must be deemed harmless error. Affirmed.
. In our view, this explanation was far more curative of the potential prejudice than the trial court’s instruction to the jury to disregard the police officer’s statement that the photograph had been “used in another investigation” which itself 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 in denying defendant’s motion for mistrial when officer’s statement that he “recognized [the defendant] from probably previous things” was subject of curative instruction to jury); Sykes v. State, 329 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (court properly denied mistrial after instructing jury to disregard statement by officer that he had seen the defendant in jail on several occasions); Williams v. State, 327 So. 2d 798 (Fla.3d DCA 1976) (jury instruction to disregard statement of police officer that he first came in contact with defendant when he arrested him on a bench warrant rendered error harmless); Rhome v. State, 222 So. 2d 431 (Fla.3d DCA 1969) (instruction to jury to disregard statement by police officer that there were “some other circumstances involving the defendant” sufficient to overcome possibility of prejudice); Monroe v. State, 218 So. 2d 209 (Fla.2d DCA 1969) (testimony of police officer that the defendant “was involved in the same type of incident prior to that” harmless error in view of the court’s instruction to the jury to disregard the testimony); Kelly v. State, 202 So. 2d 901 (Fla.2d DCA 1967) (trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for mistrial after instructing jury to disregard statement by police officer that he was assigned to the surveillance of “two known felons”).
. The defendant robbed a taxi driver who had picked him up at a hotel. He forced the driver out of the cab and drove the cab away. The cab was located two blocks away by the police, and found therein was the defendant’s wallet which contained his driver’s license and other papers upon which the defendant’s handwriting appeared. Moreover, the victim had ample opportunity to observe the defendant and unhesitatingly identified him.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Marshall v. State, 439 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…nstruction); Flowers v. State, 351 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (denial of motion for mistrial proper when officer’s statement that he recognized the defendant from “previous things” was subject of curative instruction). See also Williams v. State, 438 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Evans v. State, 422 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Moore v. State, 418 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (same result where reference is to “mug shot” of defendant). Accordingly, we affirm.…
-
D'Anna v. State, 453 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…73); State v. Rucker, 330 So. 2d 470 (Fla.1976). Rather, the reviewing court must examine “the entire record and surrounding circumstances,” Loftin, supra at 71, to determine whether the error must be considered harmless. See also Williams v. State, 438 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), cause dismissed, 443 So. 2d 981 (Fla.1983). Among the factors to be considered are the extent of other clear, unequivocal evidence of identification of the defendant rendered in-court, Loftin, supra at 71, whether the photographs…
-
Fuster v. State, 480 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ch photographs alone does not necessarily convey to the [*175] jury that a defendant has committed prior offenses or has previously been in trouble with the police, particularly where a curative instruction is requested and given. Williams v. State, 438 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA) and cases cited at 153, n. 1, cause dismissed, 443 So. 2d 981 (Fla.1983); Evans v. State, 422 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Moore v. State, 418 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The first district court’s statement of law in Duncan v. St…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Coy Kelly v. State, 202 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Rhome v. State, 222 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Moore v. State, 418 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Jiri Berezovsky v. State, 351 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Evans v. State, 422 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- George v. State, 329 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Hernandez v. State, 323 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Riley v. State, 367 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Warren v. State, 270 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1972)
- Williams v. State, 327 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)