ODOM
v.
STATE
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.
The defendant appealed a conviction arguing the trial court erred in denying a motion for mistrial based on the prosecutor's single reference to 'jail calls' during closing argument. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding the reference was not so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mistrial motion. The reference to 'jail calls' was brief, isolated, and inadvertent, and therefore not so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial.
[1] A prosecutor's brief, isolated, and inadvertent reference to incarceration in closing argument does not warrant mistrial where the reference is not so prejudicial as to v…
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“Even if the jurors might have inferred that [the defendant] was jailed for a different crime, the reference to the jail was brief, isolated, inadvertent, and not so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial.”
Court cited Guzman v. State in applying the standard for prejudicial comments
A sixteen-minute jail call between the defendant and a victim was admitted into evidence without objection during trial, though it was not identified …
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 Prosecutor'S Closing Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
Affirmed. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for mistrial based on a prosecutor’s passing reference to “jail calls” in closing argument.1 A sixteen-minute jail call from the defendant to a victim was admitted into evidence during the case and without objection, but was not identified at that time as a “jail” call. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial based on this reference during the State’s closing argument, and the motion was denied by the trial court.
We find no abuse of discretion or harmful error in the trial court’s denial of a motion for mistrial based on this single word amidst ten pages of closing argument.
The issue does not warrant extended discussion, as it is clear the reference was not “so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial.” See Guzman v. State, 214 So. 3d 625, 633 (Fla. 2017) (“Even if the jurors might have inferred that [the defendant] was jailed for a different crime, the reference to the jail was brief, isolated, inadvertent, and not so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial.”); Fletcher v. State, 168 So. 3d 186, 207 (Fla. 2015) (“A comment [regarding a defendant's prior imprisonment] that is brief, isolated, and inadvertent may not warrant a mistrial.”).
The final judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Salter v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Fletcher v. State, 168 So. 3d 186 (Fla. 2015)
- Guzman v. State, 214 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 2017)