JESUS HERNANDO DONADO, 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.
Jesus Hernando Donado appeals his conviction and sentence for trafficking in cocaine. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirms the conviction, upholding the trial court's denial of Donado's suppression motion, rejection of his mistrial arguments regarding improper closing statements, and denial of his motion to sever defendants.
The trial court properly denied all three motions. There was ample probable cause for arrest and a prima facie showing of corpus delicti independent of the confession. Although the closing arguments were improper, they were not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant mistrial given the curative instructions and strength of the evidence. The denial of severance was also proper.
[1] A confession is admissible when there is ample probable cause for the arrest and a prima facie showing of the corpus delicti apart from the confession.
[2] Improper comments made during closing arguments do not necessarily vitiate an entire trial if the trial court provides an adequate curative instruction and the evidence a…
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“the totality of the circumstances in this case shows both probable cause for the defendant's arrest”
Establishes the court's standard for evaluating whether arrest was lawful
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDonado was arrested and confessed to police regarding cocaine trafficking charges. The trial court admitted his confession into evidence. During trial…
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 Curative Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Jesus Hernando Donado from a final judgment of conviction and sentence for trafficking in cocaine. For the reasons which follow, we affirm.
First, we conclude that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress and admitted in evidence the defendant’s confession to the police. There was ample probable cause for the defendant’s arrest, and a prima facie showing of a corpus delicti was made below. We have not overlooked the defendant’s forceful arguments to the contrary, but are not persuaded thereby. A detailed factual analysis of the record evidence which led us to these conclusions would unnecessarily burden this opinion, but suffice it to say that the totality of the circumstances in this ease shows both probable cause for the defendant’s arrest, see Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-76, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 1310-11, 93 L.Ed. 1879, 1890 (1949); United States v. Canieso, 470 F. 2d 1224 (2d Cir.1972); cf. State v. Dean, 532 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), rev. denied, 542 So. 2d 1333 (Fla.1989); Sands v. State, 414 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and a prima facie corpus delicti apart from the defendant’s confession. See Thomas v. State, 531 So. 2d 708, 710 (Fla.1988); State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823 (Fla.1976); McIntosh v. State, 532 So. 2d 1129, 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); State v. Hepburn, 460 So. 2d 422, 426 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); cf. State v. Gilbert, 507 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
Second, we conclude that the comments made in closing argument to the jury by the prosecuting attorney and counsel for the codefendant, although improper, did not vitiate the entire trial and thereby compel a mistrial. The prosecuting attorney’s comments were, at worst, only marginally prejudicial to the defendant — and the trial court, in any event, gave the jury a more than adequate curative instruction. The codefendant counsel’s statements were admittedly more disturbing, but, in balance, we conclude that they did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial — especially given the weight of the evidence adduced against the defendant at trial and the trial court’s brief curative instruction to the jury. See State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955, 956 (Fla.1984); Breedlove v. State, 413 So. 2d 1, 8 (Fla.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 882, 103 S.Ct. 184, 74 L.Ed.2d 149 (1982); Macias v. State, 447 So. 2d 1020, 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Tacoronte v. State, 419 So. 2d 789, 792-93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Third, we conclude that the motion for severance of defendants was properly denied by the trial court. McCray v. State, 416 So. 2d 804, 806 (Fla.1982).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (16 total)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1949)
- Tison v. Arizona (two cases), 459 U.S. 882 (U.S. 1982)
- State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1976)
- Coffman Realty, Inc. v. Tosohatchee Game Preserve, Inc., 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)
- McArthur Breedlove v. State, 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)
- Ervin McCRAY v. State, 416 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 1982)
- Thomas v. State, 531 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1988)
- United States v. Domingo S. Canieso and Siu Tsien Chou, 470 F.2d 1224 (2d Cir. 1972)
- State v. Hepburn, 460 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)