LARRY V. GYSIN AND BRUCE HINSON GAMMAGE, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE 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.
This criminal appeal concerns whether remarks made by the assistant state attorney during trial warranted a mistrial or jury instruction. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding the remarks insufficient to require a mistrial and that the defense failed to properly preserve the issue for appeal regarding jury instructions.
No, the remarks were not sufficient to require a mistrial, and the defense failed to properly preserve the issue of jury instructions for appeal. Therefore, no reversible error occurred.
“We have determined that the remarks to which our attention has been called were not sufficient to require the granting of a mistrial in this case.”
Establishes the court's finding that the remarks did not meet the threshold for a mistrial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a criminal trial, the assistant state attorney made remarks that the appellants (defendants) contended were prejudicial. The defense sought a m…
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 Prejudicial Remarks cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a criminal appeal in which the sole point presented is that the court erred in failing to grant a mistrial on its own motion or, in the alternative, to instruct the jury to disregard certain remarks of the assistant state attorney. We have determined that the remarks to which our attention has been called were not sufficient to require the granting of a mistrial in this case. See Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625. We do not, therefore, consider the effect of appellants’ failure to move for a mistrial.
The second portion of appellants’ argument is directed to the trial judge’s failure to instruct the jury to disregard the alleged prejudicial remarks. This contention of error is not supported by the record because although some of the alleged prejudicial remarks were objected to, others were not. In addition, appellants did not request the court to instruct the jury to disregard what they considered to be prejudicial statements. See Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625. We have also considered this record under the discretion set forth in Rule 6.16, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., and we hold that no reversible error appears.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gysin v. State, 205 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…jury of his peers, and convicted. Judgment and Sentence accordingly. Thereafter, with his private counsel he prosecuted an appeal to this court which reviewed the matter and affirmed the action of the trial court. See: Gysin v. State, Fla.App.1963, 151 So. 2d 349. The appellant filed a petition seeking relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S. A. ch. 924 Appendix, which relief was denied. Subsequently he filed a second petition for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, which relief was denied an…
-
Stanley v. DE Soto Mortg. Co., 160 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…[*552] PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Cole v. Cole, Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 126; Henderson v. United States Discount Corp., Fla.App.1963, 150 So. 2d 258, and McLeod v. Mershon, Fla.App.1963, 151 So. 2d 349. SMITH, C. J., SHANNON, J., and RAWLS, JOHN S., Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Holmes v. State, 228 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…e statements, the trial court sustained objections of the defendant’s attorney, and no request was made for the court to instruct the jury to disregard the remarks. See Morris v. State, 1930, 100 Fla. 850, 130 So. 582; Gysin v. State, Fla.App. 1963, 151 So. 2d 349; Lawrence v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 572; 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1115. As to the third statement, the defendant’s attorney moved to strike the same and the motion was granted. In addition, although it was not requested, the court instruct…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582 (Fla. 1947)
- Hewall Inv. Co. v. Scott, 158 Fla. 795 (Fla. 1947)