SEABRON SHERROD, APPELLANT,
v.
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 trial court abused its discretion in denying motions for mistrial based on improper comments about the location of arrest being a high crime area.
A prosecution witness and the prosecutor made repeated comments identifying the place of arrest as a high crime, high prostitution, and drug-related a…
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 Undue Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Seabron Sherrod appeals the trial court’s denial of his motions for mistrial. We reverse.
Sherrod asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motions for mistrial which were based on the repeated improper comments by a prosecution witness and the prosecutor. The improper comments by the prosecution witness, police officer Defter, were that (1) the place of arrest was a high crime, high prostitution area; (2) the place of arrest is a bad area, it is a bad area for drugs; (3) he “hit this area quite often;” and (4) that he proceeded to the alley quickly since often there is a lookout on the corner. The improper comments by the prosecutor occurred during closing argument when he alluded to the criminal character of the neighborhood. According to Sherrod, these improper comments identifying the location of arrest as a high crime area unduly prejudiced him.
In Gillion v. State, 573 So. 2d 810 (Fla.1991), the Supreme Court held that under some circumstances, the mere identification of a location as a high crime area can unduly prejudice a defendant who is arrested there, but it is not always unduly prejudicial. Whether undue prejudice exists depends on the facts of each case. Id.
Under a similar factual situation this court in Beneby v. State, 354 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 4th DGA 1978) held that the trial court reversibly erred in denying appellant’s motions for mistrial. The resolution of Bene-by was approved by the Florida Supreme Court in Gillion, supra. We conclude, therefore, that the only inference drawn from the witness’ testimony and the prosecutor’s comments was patently prejudicial to Sherrod. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion in denying Sherrod’s motions for mistrial. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED for a new trial.
DELL, GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Odell Wheeler v. State, 690 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…to the reputation of the neighborhood in both the opening statement and closing argument. “Whether or not undue prejudice exists depends on the facts of each case.” Id. at 812. Following Gillion, our court reversed a conviction in Sherrod v. State, 582 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), where the police officer had referred to the area of arrest as a “high crime, high prostitution area.” The improper testimony was highlighted in closing argument where the prosecutor alluded to the criminal character of the neig…
-
Goodwin v. State, 721 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…s (1995), places the burden on the appellant to show that a prejudicial error has occurred. We conclude that appellant has failed to demonstrate such an error. We distinguish Wheeler v. State, 690 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), Sherrod v. State, 582 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), Hutchinson v. State, 580 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), Black v. State, 545 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), and Beneby v. State, 354 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), in which “bad neighborhood” comments combined with either impro…
-
Lelieve v. State, 7 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…le error has been demonstrated, depends on the facts of each case in which such a comment has been made: Although comments that the defendant was arrested in a high-crime area are often prejudicial and constitute reversible error, Sherrod v. State, 582 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), the supreme court has held that such comments do not per se warrant reversal. Gillion v. State, 573 So. 2d 810 (Fla.1991). Instead, reviewing courts must consider whether prejudice exists based on the facts of each case. Id. at…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gillion v. State, 573 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 1991)
- Beneby v. State, 354 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)