SAMUEL ROMAN, 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 Florida appellate court reversed Roman's attempted armed robbery conviction because the trial court erred in denying his mistrial motion after the arresting officer testified about an uncharged robbery, constituting a Williams violation that was not harmless error.
A trial court's denial of a mistrial motion after an arresting officer testifies about an uncharged robbery constitutes reversible Williams error when the defendant is substantially prejudiced.
[1] Testimony by an arresting officer regarding an uncharged robbery in which the defendant was allegedly involved constitutes a Williams violation requiring reversal when th…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSamuel Roman was convicted of attempted armed robbery. During trial, the arresting officer gave testimony indicating that Roman was involved in a robb…
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 Uncharged Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant Samuel Roman appeals his conviction and sentence for attempted armed robbery. The central contention urged on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s timely motion for a mistrial after the arresting officer gave testimony at trial indicating that the defend ant was involved in a robbery for which he was not charged. It would serve no purpose to detail the precise testimony nor elaborate further on the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that we are persuaded that a Williams violation occurred below, that the defendant was substantially prejudiced thereby, and that a reversal is necessarily mandated herein. See e.g., Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959), and cases collected therein; Mann v. State, 22 Fla. 600 (1886); Selph v. State, 22 Fla. 537 (1886); Green v. State, 190 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966).
Moreover, we specifically reject the state’s central contention in’ reply that the error was harmless. Harris v. State, 427 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Vazquez v. State, 405 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), approved in part, quashed in part, 419 So. 2d 1088 (Fla.1982).
The judgment of conviction and sentence is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wright v. State, 446 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…rida Statutes on a vital issue like this. Chapman v. State, 442 So. 2d 1024, 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), and cases cited; Hopkins v. State, supra. Furthermore, considering (a) the extremely prejudicial nature of this type of evidence, Roman v. State, 438 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Cummings v. State, supra; Vazquez v. State, 405 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), approved in part, quashed in part, 419 So. 2d 1088 (Fla.1982); (b) the strong and effective emphasis placed upon it by the state attorney in attacking…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Williams v. Florida, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- White v. Illinois, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- State v. Vazquez, 419 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 1982)
- Mann v. State, 22 Fla. 600 (Fla. 1886)
- Green v. State, 190 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Selph v. State, 22 Fla. 537 (Fla. 1886)
- Jester v. State, 405 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Vazquez v. State, 405 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Harris v. State, 427 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)