FRANK HEINZ, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed burglary and false imprisonment convictions, rejecting defendant's claim that prosecutor's brief burden-shifting argument warranted mistrial because the comment was fleeting, immediately corrected by the trial court, and the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
A prosecutor's brief, one-sentence burden-shifting argument does not warrant mistrial when immediately objected to and corrected by the trial court and the evidence of guilt is strong.
[1] A prosecutor's brief, isolated burden-shifting argument does not require mistrial when the trial court immediately sustains an objection, provides a curative instruction,…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrank Heinz was convicted of burglary of a structure with assault and six counts of false imprisonment. During trial, the prosecutor made an allegedly…
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.
This is an appeal by the defendant Frank Heinz from final judgments of conviction and sentences for (a) burglary of a structure with an assault [§ 810.02(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989)], and (b) six counts of false imprisonment [§ 787.02(2), Fla.Stat. (1989)]. We affirm.
The sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying a defense motion for mistrial based on an alleged burden-shifting argument made by the prosecuting attorney to the jury. We reject this point because we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no reasonable possibility that this argument, even if improper, contributed to the verdict and, consequently, a mistrial was not required. We reach this result for three reasons: (1) the arguably improper argument was a fleeting, one-sentence comment, and was not a prolonged, inflammatory argument (TR. 768); (2) the trial court sustained, almost immediately, a defense objection to this argument and shortly thereafter gave the jury an appropriate cautionary instruction (TR. 767-68, 772); and (3) the evidence that the defendant committed the crimes for which he was convicted was strong and. pointed unerringly to the defendant. Bush v. Dugger, 579 So. 2d 725, 727 (Fla.1991); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986); Buchanan v. State, 575 So. 2d 704, 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Broxson v. State, 505 So. 2d 1361, 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 518 So. 2d 1273 (Fla.1987).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodriguez v. State, 27 So. 3d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…head and acquit him.” There is no suggestion that the prosecution intentionally misstated that law. Furthermore, the misstatement could have been readily corrected with a curative instruction had the defense objected. For example, in Heinz v. State, 615 So. 2d 238, 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), we affirmed a conviction after the prosecutor made an improper burden shifting argument where the defense objected and which the trial court immediately sustained with a cautionary instruction. Id. Nevertheless, Rodriguez a…
-
de Jesus v. State, 684 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…ange of appropriate advocacy and therefore not erroneous, much less so beyond the pale as to vitiate the trial entirely and require a new one. See Bonifay v. State, 680 So. 2d 413 (Fla.1996); King v. State, 623 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1993); Heinz v. State, 615 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). They surely bear no resemblance to the kinds of attacks on defense counsel or the defense itself which mandate reversal.1 Cf. Alvarez v. State, 574 So. 2d 1119, 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (“Don’t let them confuse you, because all yo…
-
Pozo v. State, 682 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…rk was brief and not inflammatory, it did not taint the verdict. King v. State, 623 So. 2d 486, 488 (Fla.1993) (“a conviction will not be overturned unless a prosecutor’s comment is so prejudicial that it vitiates the entire trial”); Heinz v. State, 615 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). On Issue IV, we vacated the two consecutive habitual felony offender sentences pursuant to Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521, 524 (Fla.1993) (once a defendant’s sentences for multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episod…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Bush v. Dugger, 579 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 1991)
- Broxson v. State, 505 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Buchanan v. State, 575 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)