MANUEL HERNANDEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Cautionary Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
The Appellant appeals his conviction and sentence on two counts of lewd and lascivious molestation. He argues the trial court erred in allowing Williams 1 rule evidence to become a feature of the trial and in denying his motion for mistrial. We disagree and affirm.
Appellant did not object to the admission of Williams rule evidence in this appeal. Rather, he objected only on the ground that the otherwise properly admitted Williams rule evidence became a centerpiece or feature of the trial.
We have reviewed the record and find that the otherwise properly admitted evidence did not become an improper feature of the trial. Additionally, the trial court gave cautionary instructions to the jury to prevent it from becoming a “feature.” See McLean v. State, 934 So.2d 1248, 1263 (Fla.2006). We find no merit in the argument concerning the motion for mistrial.
Affirmed.
STEVENSON, MAY and LEVINE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jewel Grier v. State, 27 So. 3d 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…). The State made few references to the collateral witnesses in closing (all were in rebuttal), and the trial court gave cautionary instructions throughout the trial to prevent L.R.’s and L.H.’s testimony from becoming a feature. Hernandez v. State, 15 So. 3d 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). For these reasons, we affirm the appellant’s convictions and sentence. Affirmed. FARMER, J., concurs. WARNER, J., concurs specially with opinion. . Ultimately, P.H. did not testify at trial. . We note that Grier has not ch…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- McLEAN v. State, 934 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 2006)