NATHANIEL ROBINSON, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a conviction for second-degree murder, finding no error in the admission of a scale model of the murder weapon or in the denial of a mistrial for alleged improper judicial comment, as the mistrial motion was untimely and the defendant received alternative requested relief.
The appellate court held that the admission of the scale model was not error, as it was properly identified and did not mislead the jury. The court also held that the motion for mistrial was untimely and that the appellant received the alternative relief he sought, rendering the denial of the mistrial proper.
“It does not appear that the introduction of the model misled or confused the jury, and same was appropriately identified as a facsimile by the state's expert witness.”
Reasoning for upholding the admission of the scale model of the murder weapon.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 30 years. On appeal, he argued that a scale model of the death weapon was imprope…
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 Admission Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a conviction of ■second degree murder and sentence of 30 years.
The appellant presents 2 points on appeal, the first going into the admission into evidence of a scale model of the death weapon, which had already been admitted without objection. It does not appear that the introduction of the model misled or confused the jury, and same was appropriately identified as a facsimile by the state’s expert witness. No error was demonstrated in permitting it into evidence. Flowers v. State, 69 Fla. 620, 68 So. 754, L.R.A. 1915E, 848; Landrum v. State, 79 Fla. 189, 84 So. 535; State v. Roy, 220 La. 1017, 58 So.2d 323; 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1091. The second point raised by the appellant is the failure to grant a mistrial because of alleged improper comment by the court. It is pointed out that the motion for mistrial was not made until a day subsequent to the complained of activity of the trial judge and, therefore, same not having been made at the moment of the occasion complained of it was untimely. Upchurch v. Mizell, 50 Fla. 456, 40 So. 29; Mendez v. State, Fla.1949, 39 So.2d 468. Further, the motion was made in the alternative for a mistrial or an appropriate instruction in reference to the court’s comments. The appellant’s counsel prepared such an instruction, which was given verbatim by the court, so it appears that the appellant got the alternate relief sought in his motion for mistrial. Therefore, the conviction and sentence is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Frand Landrum v. State, 79 Fla. 189 (Fla. 1920)
- Upchurch v. Jackson Mizell and William Mizell, 50 Fla. 456 (Fla. 1905)
- State of Fla. & the Taxpayers v. City OF Fort Pierce, 155 Fla. 58 (Fla. 1944)
- Flowers v. State, 69 Fla. 620 (Fla. 1915)