OFENIA RIVAS CEDNO, 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 a prosecutor's improper comment during closing argument, which could be interpreted as suggesting special knowledge of the defendant's prior conduct, was sufficiently cured by the trial court's instruction to the jury to disregard the remark.
The defendant, appealing her conviction for conspiracy to traffic cocaine, claimed entrapment and denied prior drug involvement. During closing argume…
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 Mistrial Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, defendant below, appeals her conviction for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. We affirm.
The sole point urged on appeal is an improper comment made by the prosecutor in closing argument.1 The defendant, a Panamanian national, relied on a defense of entrapment. She testified, among other things, that she had never been involved with drugs in Panama. In closing argument the prosecutor stated:
She says she’s never been involved in drugs before and in Panama we don’t do that. We don’t know what happened before, but she got caught this time. We can’t vouch for what happened before, but we know what happened this—
[Defense counsel]: Objection, your Hon-or, this is improper argument, move to strike that argument for consideration by the jury.
The Court: Sustained. The jury will disregard that remark.
Assuming arguendo that the remark could be read to suggest some special knowledge by the State regarding the defendant’s prior conduct (and we are not sure it can be so read), we think there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination to give a curative instruction, for “[ijmproper remarks can be cured by ordering the jury to ignore them unless they are so objectionable that such instruction would be unavailing.” Breedlove v. State, 413 So. 2d 1, 7 (Fla.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 882, 103 S.Ct. 184, 74 L.Ed.2d 149 (1982). The remark cannot be said to reach the standard necessary for a mistrial, which would require “prejudicial error which will vitiate the trial’s result.” Id. (citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.
. At oral argument the appellant abandoned her objection to the utilization of transcripts of tape recordings at the trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez v. State, 856 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ed a motion for mistrial after the state asked Perez whether he had discussed defenses with attorneys. A trial court’s decision whether to give a curative instruction or grant a mistrial is subject to an abuse of discretion standard. Cedno v. State, 545 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). A motion [*1079] for mistrial is the sound discretion of the trial judge and should only be granted in cases of absolute necessity. Salvatore v. State, 366 So. 2d 745 (Fla.1978). In other words, “a mistrial should be granted only…
-
Hite v. State, 718 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…ative instruction, “we will withdraw the objection for purposes of issuing the instruction.” The decision on whether to grant a mistrial or to give a curative instruction instead is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. See Cedno v. State, 545 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). This discretion cannot be avoided by conditionally or partially withdrawing the motion. By withdrawing the motion for mistrial in this case, there was simply no motion for mistrial remaining which would require a court ruling. [*…
-
Brulfer v. State, 711 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…in a far better position to make that judgment call than are we, as the appellate review panel. We cannot say he breached his discretion in giving this curative instruction. See Williams v. State, 674 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Cedno v. State, 545 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH, J., and SCHEB, J. M„ Senior Judge, concur. . § 784.021, 784.07(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1995).…
Authorities Cited
- Tison v. Arizona (two cases), 459 U.S. 882 (U.S. 1982)
- Coffman Realty, Inc. v. Tosohatchee Game Preserve, Inc., 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)
- McArthur Breedlove v. State, 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)