JAVARES MAURICE KENDRICK
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court's determination that mistrial was a manifest necessity deserves great deference, especially when the grounds relate to jury prejudice and the trial judge is in a unique position to observe the jurors, witnesses, and attorneys.
[1] A trial court's determination that mistrial was a manifest necessity deserves great deference on appellate review, particularly when the grounds for mistrial relate to ju…
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 intelligence“the trial judge must have the power to declare a mistrial in appropriate cases. The interest in orderly, impartial procedure would be impaired if he were deterred from exercising that power by a concern that any time a reviewing court disagreed with his assessment of the trial situation a retrial would automatically be barred.”
Citation to Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 513 (1978), explaining the necessity of trial court authority to declare mistrials
Javares Maurice Kendrick sought prohibition relief challenging a trial court's declaration of mistrial. The trial court determined that mistrial was n…
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 Petition For Writ Of Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed December 10, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-1811 Lower Tribunal No. AFHMUJE ________________
Javares Maurice Kendrick, Petitioner,
vs.
State of Florida, Respondent.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Maria E. Lauredo, Chief Assistant Public Defender, for petitioner.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Daniel Colmenares, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Denied. See Quinones v. State, 766 So. 2d 1165, 1172 n.9 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (explaining that a trial court’s determination “that mistrial was a manifest necessity deserves great deference,” especially when “the grounds for the mistrial relate to jury prejudice, for the trial judge is in a peculiarly good position to observe the jurors, the witnesses and the attorneys in order to evaluate the extent of the prejudice” (quoting Clark v. State, 756 So. 2d 244, 246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000))); see also Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 513 (1978) (“[T]he trial judge must have the power to declare a mistrial in appropriate cases. The interest in orderly, impartial procedure would be impaired if he were deterred from exercising that power by a concern that any time a reviewing court disagreed with his assessment of the trial situation a retrial would automatically be barred.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1978)
- QUIÑONES v. State, 766 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Clark v. State, 756 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)