ROBERT ARSIS, 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.
Robert Arsis was convicted of robbery, aggravated battery, and false imprisonment and sentenced to 35 years imprisonment. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court committed reversible error by admitting evidence of prior criminal conduct that violated a pretrial order in limine, compounded by improper prosecutorial argument suggesting the defendant would commit future crimes if not convicted.
The court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court committed reversible error in denying the motion for mistrial. The admission of evidence regarding prior criminal conduct violated the pretrial order in limine, and the prosecutor's argument that the defendant would commit future crimes if not convicted violated well-established precedent and called for a mistrial.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by denying a motion for a mistrial when the state introduces evidence previously excluded by an order granting a motion in limine.
[2] A prosecuting attorney is precluded from arguing to a jury that a defendant will commit future crimes if not convicted in the current 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“the trial court committed reversible error in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial when the state introduced evidence — contrary to the trial court's order granting the defendant's pretrial motion in limine — that prior to the charged offenses, the defendant told his accomplices that 'he robbed taxicabs for a living.'”
Establishes the core reversible error: introduction of evidence that violated the pretrial order in limine
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Arsis was charged with robbery, aggravated battery, and false imprisonment. Prior to trial, the trial court granted a motion in limine to exclu…
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 Prior Bad Acts Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Robert Arsis from final judgments of conviction and sentences totaling thirty-five (35) years imprisonment for robbery, aggravated battery, and false imprisonment.
We reverse these convictions and sentences and remand the cause to the trial court for a new trial upon a holding that the trial court committed reversible error in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial when the state introduced evidence — contrary to the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s pretrial motion in limine — that prior to the charged offenses, the defendant told his accomplices that “he robbed taxicabs for a living.” Jackson v. State, 451 So. 2d 458 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 183, 102 L.Ed.2d 153 (1988).
Moreover, this error was compounded when the prosecuting attorney made use of this erroneously admitted evidence in closing argument by improperly arguing to the jury, over objection, that if the defendant was “not made responsible for [his] actions[,] [w]hat is to stop him from any future action”; indeed, this comment in itself called for a mistrial inasmuch as it is well settled that a prosecuting attorney is precluded from arguing to a jury, as here, that the defendant will commit crimes in the future if not convicted in the case on trial. Sherman v. State, 255 So. 2d 263 (Fla.1971); Gomez v. State, 415 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Sims v. State, 371 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Contrary to the state’s argument, we are unable to say that the admission of the above evidence and the prosecuting attorney’s comment thereon was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt — especially given (a) the discrepancies in the victim’s identification of the defendant, (b) the discrepancies and otherwise dubious credibility of the accomplice testimony, and (c) the devastating nature of the above inadmissible evidence and prosecutorial comment. Keen v. State, 504 So. 2d 396, 401-02 (Fla.1987); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1138-39 (Fla.1986); Vazquez v. State, 405 So. 2d 177, 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), approved in part, quashed in part on other grounds, 419 So. 2d 1088 (Fla.1982).
Given our decision to reverse and remand for a new trial, it is unnecessary to address the defendant’s sentencing point. The final judgments of conviction and sentences under review are reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cuthbertson v. State, 623 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…implicates Appellant in prior armed robberies. Such evidence is considered prejudicial unless otherwise deemed harmless. E.g. State v. Ramos, 579 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Broderick v. State, 564 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Arsis v. State, 581 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The error and resulting prejudice were not cured by the court’s poll of the jury, questioning each juror in an effort to determine whether the juror had in fact heard the objectionable portion of the testimony. Cf. Hill v. State…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Thompson v. Louisiana, 488 U.S. 871 (U.S. 1988)
- State v. Vazquez, 419 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 1982)
- Jackson v. State, 451 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1984)
- Keen v. State, 504 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1987)
- Gomez v. State, 415 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Sherman v. State, 255 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 1971)
- Jester v. State, 405 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Vazquez v. State, 405 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Sims v. State, 371 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)