HERBERT MARSHALL, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed defendant's conviction, holding that a curative instruction adequately remedied prejudice from a lab technician's testimony implying the defendant had a prior arrest based on fingerprint matching.
A curative instruction is sufficient to dissipate any prejudicial effects when a lab technician's testimony implies a defendant's prior arrest through reference to a jail fingerprint master file.
[1] A curative instruction adequately remedies prejudice from testimony implying a defendant's prior arrest when a witness references a jail fingerprint master file during id…
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 intelligenceA lab technician testified that the defendant's fingerprints matched those in a master file of persons previously booked at Dade County jail, thereby …
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 Fingerprint Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The sole point on appeal is whether the defendant is entitled to a new trial where a lab technician testified that the defendant’s fingerprints matched those taken from a master file of persons previously booked at the Dade County jail, thereby implying that the defendant had a prior arrest. Viewing the record in light of this contention, we find that the curative instruction given by the court was sufficient to dissipate any prejudicial effects of the technician’s comment. Smith v. State, 365 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (if requested, curative instruction would have corrected any prejudice to defendant caused by reference to commissary slips which could only have been signed by one in jail), pet. for review denied, 402 So. 2d 613 (Fla.1981); Williams v. State, 354 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (reference by witness to fact that defendant had been in prison cured by instruction); 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Parrish v. Dougherty, 505 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…was insufficient to support a judgment against her. Because this issue was not presented to the trial court, and thus was not preserved for appellate review, we decline to address it. Dober v. Worrell, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla.1981); Atwood v. Hendrix, 439 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Finally, appellants argue that the trial court erred in awarding both liquidated and [*649] actual damages for the same injury. For the reasons now discussed we agree that this ruling was error. First, we note that the obligat…
-
Multitech Corp. v. ST. Johns Bluff Inv. Corp., 518 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…l not consider or rule upon questions that were not presented to the trial court, we do not address St. Johns’ purported lack of standing to enforce the provisions of the contract. See Dober v. Worrell, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla.1981); Atwood v. Hendrix, 439 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Multitech asserted that St. Johns lacked standing to enforce the provisions of the contract because it was not listed as seller on the closing statement. The record reflects that this specific standing argument was not raised in…
-
D'Anna v. State, 453 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…tion of the defendant rendered in-court, Loftin, supra at 71, whether the photographs were “cropped” so as to hide the identity of the photographing agency, Houston v. State, supra at 469, whether a curative instruction was given, Marshall v. State, 439 So. 2d 973, 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), and the extent to which the photographs or reference to them at trial refer to a defendant’s past criminal record. Sims v. State, 444 So. 2d 922 (Fla.1983); see also Loftin v. State, supra at 71, (question is the extent to w…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Moore v. State, 418 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Jiri Berezovsky v. State, 351 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Smith v. State, 365 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Williams v. State, 354 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Evans v. State, 422 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Williams v. State, 438 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)