MARK D. VANGOEY, 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.
Mark Vangoey appeals his conviction for sexual battery and lewd assault on his five-year-old son. Although the trial court erred in allowing a reference to Vangoey's prior arrest to be played to the jury despite the prosecutor's assurances it would be redacted, the appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding the error harmless.
Although it was clearly error for the prosecutor to play the unredacted portion of the statement containing the reference to prior arrest, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial because the reference was fleeting and insubstantial, played no real part in the jury's deliberations, and any harm could have been cured by a jury instruction that defendant refused.
[1] A prosecutor's failure to redact a defendant's prior arrest and probation from a recorded statement, despite assurances to defense counsel that it would be redacted, cons…
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial when a brief and insubstantial reference to a defendant's prior arrest and probation is played to the ju…
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“It was clearly error for the prosecutor to play the portion of Vangoey's statement complained of.”
The court acknowledged that the prosecutor's failure to redact the prior arrest reference was erroneous.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVangoey was charged with sexual battery and lewd and lascivious assault on his five-year-old son, M.V. At trial, the victim testified to the sex acts,…
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 Curative Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, J.
Mark D. Vangoey [“Vangoey”] appeals his conviction for sexual battery upon a person less than twelve years of age and lewd and lascivious assault on a person less than twelve years of age. The victim was Vangoey’s then five-year-old son, M.V.
At trial, there was clear evidence of Vangoey’s guilt. M.V. testified clearly and specifically to the sex acts his father subjected him to. The victim’s maternal grandmother testified to a telephone conversation with Vangoey, which was recorded by police. On the tape, which was introduced into evidence, Vangoey referred to himself as a “pedophile” and admitted perpetrating sex acts on his son. Near the end of the tape, Vangoey also referred to an earlier arrest for a similar offense, stating:
Cause I didn’t want it to go on, but I— but I, you know, I beg every day for forgiveness from God, and I hope that maybe some day you all can just — you know, it seems like the first time when I was arrested and put on probation everybody just said, well, everybody’s got their problems and stuff.
(Emphasis added).
Defense counsel immediately objected to the jury hearing the reference to Van-goey’s earlier arrest, explaining that he had been told by the prosecutor that it would be redacted from the tape. He acknowledged that he had not listened to the entire redacted version of the tape, but explained this was because he had been told this information would be eliminated. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial, arguing that the defect could not be cured. The prosecutor advised the court that he had simply overlooked this particular reference to prior arrests and probation, while removing other similar references.
The court denied defendant’s motion for mistrial, stating:
I don’t think that the isolated comment in the context of the entire tape is of such a nature that a mistrial would be warranted in this case. It doesn’t refer, really, to anything. I wish it wasn’t in there, and I’m sure [the prosecutor] does too; but it’s there, it’s played. The motion for mistrial will be denied, but I don’t want to hear anymore about that comment between now and the end of trial.
No real defense was presented to the jury. Defense counsel conceded during closing that something had happened, but suggested it was something less than the offense which had been charged by the State. Vangoey was found guilty of both offenses. He was sentenced as a sexual predator to a mandatory life sentence for the sexual battery and to eight years in prison for the lewd assault, the sentences to be served concurrently.
It was clearly error for the prosecutor to play the portion of Vangoey’s statement complained of. We reject the State’s argument that defense counsel invited the error by failing to review the tape. He was entitled to rely on the prosecutor’s assurances that all references to defendant’s criminal record had been redacted from the tape. It was the prosecutor who was remiss, not defense counsel. Nonetheless, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of Van-goey’s motion for mistrial. The trial court concluded that the reference to Vangoey’s first arrest and his probation was so fleeting and insubstantial that it played no real part in the jury’s deliberations and did not contribute to the verdict reached by the jury. The trial court could also have concluded that any harm caused by the erroneous admission of this evidence could have been alleviated by the use of a curative instruction, which was refused by Van-goey. We find no reversible error. AFFIRMED.
COBB and PALMER, JJ., concur.