JAMES W. DAYMON, 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.
James Daymon appeals his second degree murder conviction, challenging the trial court's denial of his motions for judgment of acquittal and mistrial. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no prejudicial error in the trial judge's conversational jury instruction that referenced "two sides to every story," though cautioning trial courts against deviating from approved standard instructions.
The trial judge did not err in denying the mistrial motion. Although the judge deviated from approved standard jury instructions, the comment was not prejudicial when viewed in the context of all the instructions given.
[1] A trial judge's conversational delivery of standard jury instructions, including a homily about there being two sides to every story, does not constitute a mistrial-worth…
[2] While a trial judge's deviation from standard jury instructions may not always be prejudicial, extreme caution should be exercised to avoid potential prejudice from well-…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“I would ask each of you not to form any definite or fixed opinion about this case. As in most things that you've heard all your life-every once in a while there's some truth in all those homilies that you have heard growing up-and that one about being two sides of every story is certainly true in a criminal justice setting.”
The trial judge's jury instruction comment that prompted Daymon's mistrial motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt the beginning of trial, the judge delivered preliminary jury instructions in a conversational manner rather than reading them rote. While covering …
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 Right To Remain Silent cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James W. Daymon appeals his conviction for second degree murder. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and his motion for a mistrial. We affirm as to both issues, but find only the motion for mistrial merits comment.
At the beginning of the trial proceedings, the trial judge gave preliminary jury instructions. Although she followed the Florida Supreme Court’s prescribed instructions, the trial judge presented the instructions in a conversational manner rather than reading the instructions by rote. In her attempt to enhance the clarity of the instructions, she commented:
I would ask each of you not to form any definite or fixed opinion about this case. As in most things that you’ve heard all your life-every once in a while there’s some truth in all those homilies that you have heard growing up-and that one about being two sides of every story is certainly true in a criminal justice setting. And for that reason I would ask that you please not form any opinions on the merits of the case until you have heard all of the evidence, the arguments of the lawyers and the instructions that I will give you on the law....
At the conclusion of the instructions, Daymon’s counsel moved for a mistrial, suggesting that the judge’s remark that there are two sides to every story was an improper comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent. The trial judge denied the motion and Daymon takes this appeal.
After reading the entirety of the instructions, we are satisfied that the comment was not prejudicial. The standard instructions warn the jurors not to reach a conclusion as to the merits of the case until they have heard all the evidence, the lawyers’ arguments, and the court’s instructions on the law. The trial court underscored its admonition with its homily. Although we do not find error, we would urge the trial court to exercise extreme caution when deviating from the approved standard jury instructions. Under other circumstances, such an innocent and well-intended statement could result in potential prejudice.
We affirm.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Warren v. State, 307 So. 3d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…which he himself may not attach particular importance.” Kellum v. State, 104 So. 2d 99, 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). We do not question the trial court’s laudable intentions in this regard. Nevertheless, and as our sister court did in Daymon v. State, 744 So. 2d 581, 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), we “urge the trial court to exercise extreme caution when deviating from the . . . standard jury instructions.” 2 Affirmed. 1 See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 3.7 2 The instant case is distinguishable from those cases in w…
-
Kiley v. State, 770 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). [*1279] Even if preserved, and we conclude that the trial court’s preliminary comments at the start of jury selection did not accurately reflect Florida Standard Jury Instruction 1.01, we would affirm. As in Daymon v. State, 744 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), the judge’s comments in this case were presented in a conversational manner. After the jury was sworn, however, the judge did in fact read the proper instruction. Under Varona v. State, 674 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), even a…
-
Smith v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence