PEDRO ANTONIO LAUREANO QUESADA
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Quesada appealed his convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery with a firearm, attempted robbery with a firearm, and attempted felony murder, arguing he was entitled to a mistrial after the State elicited testimony about an uncharged robbery discussion. The court affirmed, holding that the co-defendant's inadvertent, fleeting reference to planning another robbery was not sufficiently prejudicial to vitiate the entire trial.
The court held that a mistrial is appropriate only when error is so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial, and this determination is within the trial court's discretion. The co-defendant's inadvertent, fleeting, and vague reference to discussing another robbery was not sufficiently prejudicial to require a mistrial.
[1] A trial court's ruling on a motion for mistrial is within its discretion.
[2] A mistrial is appropriate only where the error is so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A mistrial is appropriate only where the error is so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial. A ruling on a motion for mistrial is within the trial court's discretion.”
Establishes the legal standard for granting a mistrial motion, which is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring trial, the State questioned Quesada's co-defendant about text messages from Quesada's phone discussing a robbery plan. When asked about message…
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
STARGEL, J.
Pedro Antonio Laureano Quesada appeals his judgment and sentences for conspiracy to commit robbery with a firearm, attempted robbery with a firearm, and attempted felony murder. We affirm Quesada's judgment and sentences in all respects; however, we write to briefly address Quesada's argument that he was entitled to a mistrial after the State elicited testimony implicating him in an uncharged offense. We reject Quesada's remaining arguments without further discussion. At trial, the State questioned Quesada's co-defendant about a series of text messages extracted from Quesada's phone in which they discussed their plan to commit the robbery in the present case. When the State asked specifically what they were discussing in messages from September 29, the co-defendant responded, "[d]oing a robbery on somebody else." Quesada promptly requested a mistrial, which the trial court denied but warned the State not to go any further down that road. The State indicated that the co-defendant's response came as a surprise. No curative instruction was requested or given.
“A mistrial is appropriate only where the error is so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial. A ruling on a motion for mistrial is within the trial court's discretion." Hamilton v. State, 703 So. 2d 1038, 1041 (Fla. 1997) (citation omitted).¹
In the present case, Quesada's co-defendant's inadvertent, fleeting, and vague reference to a discussion about planning another robbery was not so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial. See, e.g., Smiley v. State, 295 So. 3d 156, 169 (Fla. 2020) (holding that co-perpetrator's “vague reference to 'when we normally operate like that' [when questioned why he thought the defendant had gloves with him at the
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, J., concurs. NARDELLA, J., dissents, with opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Straight v. State, 397 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1981)
- Loran Cole v. State, 701 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 1997)
- Hamilton v. State, 703 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1997)
- Smiley v. State, 295 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 2020)
- Sanzaro v. Crowe, 397 So. 3d 626 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025)
- Benny Morton v. State, 972 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- Bell v. Real Est. Fla. Commercial Int'l, Inc., 995 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- State v. Woodruff, 346 So. 3d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
- Gillig v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)