WILLIAM HOWARD JOHNSTON, III, 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.
William Howard Johnston III appeals his conviction for aggravated battery, claiming trial error in the denial of his mistrial motion and in the trial court's refusal to provide a special jury instruction defining 'great bodily harm.' The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in either ruling.
The trial court did not err in denying the mistrial motion because the issued curative instruction was sufficient to rectify any prejudice from the victim's reference to Johnston's prior incarceration. The trial court did not err in refusing a separate instruction defining 'great bodily harm' because the standard jury instruction adequately and accurately explained the law.
[1] A trial court has discretion in granting or denying a motion for mistrial, and such motions should only be granted when necessary to ensure a fair trial.
[2] The denial of a motion for mistrial coupled with a curative instruction is often sufficient to rectify prejudice arising from improper testimony.
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“Motions for mistrial are addressed to the discretion of the trial court and should only be granted when necessary to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial.”
Establishes the standard for evaluating mistrial motions and why the trial court's denial was within its discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnston was charged with aggravated battery and false imprisonment. Evidence showed that Johnston repeatedly beat his girlfriend over several days, c…
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 Standard Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, J.
William Howard Johnston, III appeals his conviction for aggravated battery raising two claims of trial error. We affirm.
Johnston was charged with aggravated battery and false imprisonment. The evidence at trial included testimony that Johnston beat his girlfriend repeatedly over a number of days to the point where she was barely recognizable by her mother, she sustained lasting pain, she had a loss of hearing, and she was unrecognizable by a police officer who had seen her the prior day.
Johnston first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial. The motion was made when the victim testified, after being asked if Johnston had explained to her the source of his anger, that he was angry at her because she had not visited him when he was in jail. Defense counsel objected and moved for mistrial, arguing that the victim’s statement improperly informed the jury of Johnston’s prior criminal history. Although the trial court denied the motion, it issued a curative instruction to the jury.
Motions for mistrial are addressed to the discretion of the trial court and should only be granted when necessary to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial. Power v. State, 605 So. 2d 856, 861 (Fla.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1037, 113 S.Ct. 1863, 123 L.Ed.2d 483 (1993); Terry v. State, 668 So. 2d 954, 962 (Fla.1996). Florida courts have repeatedly held the denial of a mistrial and the issuance of a curative instruction sufficient to rectify prejudice in similar cases. Walker v. State, 707 So. 2d 300, 313 (Fla.1997) (holding the admission of testimony which referenced other charges was harmless error in light of trial court’s curative instruction); Webber v. State, 718 So. 2d 258, 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (holding that improper testimony of evidence of collateral crimes constituted harmless error where the trial court issued curative instruction); Marshall v. State, 439 So. 2d 973, 974 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1983) (holding that curative instruction corrected any prejudice created by testimony that the defendant’s fingerprints matched the fingerprints taken from the files of a person who had previously been booked at the jail); Williams v. State, 354 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978) (holding that reference by witness to fact that defendant had been in prison cured by instruction). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s ruling.
Johnston next argues that the trial court erred in refusing to give a proffered jury instruction providing a definition of “great bodily harm.” We also reject this claim of error. Here, the standard jury instruction was given and Johnston cites no case law in which any Florida court has found it necessary to provide a separate definition for the term “great bodily harm.” If the standard jury instruction adequately and accurately explains the law, it is preferable to give that standard instruction. McGuire v. State, 639 So. 2d 1043, 1047 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 649 So. 2d 234 (Fla.1994).
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP and PETERSON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Desmond T. Kenner v. State, 208 So. 3d 271 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…Florida law is clear that an appropriate, timely curative instruction can sufficiently eliminate the harmful nature of the improper comment so that a mistrial is not required. See Walker v. State, 707 So. 2d 300, 312 (Fla. 1997); Johnston v. State, 774 So. 2d 952, 953-54 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for mistrial. USE OF FELONY JUDGMENTS TO IMPEACH DYING DECLARANT Appellant next argues that the trial court erred in…
-
Chesnoff v. State, 840 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…te asked the court to define “great bodily harm” as provided in Coronado v. State, 654 So. 2d 1267, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The defense objected, conceding that the Coronado definition was not erroneous, but arguing that based on Johnston v. State, 774 So. 2d 952, 954 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), it was unnecessary for the trial court to provide a definition of great bodily harm. The judge gave the jury the standard instructions for aggravated battery, which required the jury to find that the defendant intentionall…
-
Robinson v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Terry v. State, 668 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1996)
- Walker v. State, 707 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1997)
- Power v. State, 605 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1992)
- Williams v. State, 354 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Atwood v. Hendrix, 439 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Marshall v. State, 439 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- McGUIRE v. State, 639 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Power v. Florida, 507 U.S. 1037 (U.S. 1993)
- Hall v. San Diego Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 507 U.S. 1037 (U.S. 1993)
- Webber v. State, 718 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)