LARRY LEE JONES, A/K/A GENOA LITTLE, 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.
Larry Jones appeals his conviction for burglary of an unoccupied building and third-degree grand theft. The court affirms, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence that Jones acted as a lookout for a codefendant and that the trial court properly rejected his mistrial motion regarding inadmissible testimony about scissors.
The court held that sufficient circumstantial evidence established Jones's role as a lookout for the codefendant's burglary and theft. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mistrial motion because the testimony about the scissors, although arguably irrelevant, was not so prejudicial as to require mistrial, and any error was invited by Jones's own cross-examination.
[1] Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to establish that a defendant acted as a lookout during the commission of a burglary and theft.
[2] A mistrial is not warranted when a police officer's testimony, though violating a prior exclusion order, is not so prejudicial as to deny the defendant a fair trial.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“sufficient circumstantial evidence was adduced below to establish that the defendant was a "lookout" for a codefendant who broke into the house herein and committed the charged theft”
Establishes the court's finding that circumstantial evidence adequately proved Jones's accomplice liability as a lookout
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJones was charged with burglary of an unoccupied building and third-degree grand theft. A codefendant broke into a house and committed the charged the…
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 Third Degree Grand Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Larry Jones from a judgment of conviction and sentence for burglary of an unoccupied building and third-degree grand theft. The defendant presents two points on appeal, neither of which represent reversible error. We, accordingly, affirm.
First, although the point is far from frivolous as the state maintains, we conclude that, in balance, sufficient circumstantial evidence was adduced below to establish that the defendant was a “lookout” for a codefendant who broke into the house herein and committed the charged theft. See T.J.T. v. State, 460 So. 2d 508, 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Rosson v. State, 319 So. 2d 64, 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Jefferson v. State, 298 So. 2d 465, 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); cf. Pack v. State, 381 So. 2d 1199, 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
Second, no error is presented by the trial court’s refusal to grant the defendant’s motion for mistrial after a police officer testified that the defendant had a pair of scissors in his hand when arrested, which testimony violated a prior trial court order excluding such evidence. This testimony, although arguably irrelevant, was not so prejudicial that a mistrial was called for; moreover, the further testimony that the officer considered the scissors a weapon was elicited by the defendant on cross examination so that the error, if any, was entirely invited by the defendant. See Stanley v. State, 357 So. 2d 1031, 1034 (Fla.1974); Sullivan v. State, 303 So. 2d 632, 635 (Fla.1974), cert. denied, 428 U.S. 911, 96 S.Ct. 3226, 49 L.Ed.2d 1220 (1976); Stanley v. State, 357 So. 2d 1031, 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 891 (Fla.1978); Lowman v. State, 353 So. 2d 652, 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lindeman v. State, 563 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…[*212] PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Jones v. State, 532 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Holley v. State, 523 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Kelley v. State, 486 So. 2d 578 (Fla.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 871, 107 S.Ct. 244, 93 L.Ed.2d 169 (1986); Lowman v. State, 353 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).…
-
Fernandez-Carballo v. State, 590 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…eposition of the said police officer when the defense motions for a continuance and mistrial were denied. The defendant, not the state, offered such deposition in evidence and consequently any claimed error here was entirely invited. Jones v. State, 532 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Stanley v. State, 357 So. 2d 1031, 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 891 (Fla.1978). Finally, the defendant was given adequate written notice that he would be sentenced as an habitual offender. § 775.-084(3)(b), Fla.S…
-
A.M. v. State, 561 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…,” distracting store clerk and looking over shoulder for persons who might be watching while his companion pried open jewelry case supported finding that juvenile was guilty of aiding and abetting commission of grand theft); see also Jones v. State, 532 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (defendant circling neighborhood and giving “thumbs-up” signal to codefendant sufficient evidence to affirm conviction as aider and abettor for burglary and third-degree grand theft). Accordingly, the adjudication of delinquency…
Authorities Cited
- Sullivan v. State, 303 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1974)
- Pulliam v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 911 (U.S. 1976)
- Pack v. State, 381 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Stanley v. State, 357 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- T.J.T. v. State, 460 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Jefferson v. State, 298 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Rosson v. State, 319 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Lowman v. State, 353 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)