DAVID LAWRENCE, APPELLANT,
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.
The appellate court affirmed two robbery convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings or the prosecutor's conduct. The court held that any potential prejudice from improper remarks was cured by jury instructions or the lack of timely objection.
No, the appellate court held that the trial court properly denied the motions for mistrial. Any improper remarks by the prosecutor were either cured by jury instructions or not objected to in a timely manner, and the testimony about guilty pleas was not met with timely objection.
“We have carefully considered the points presented on1 appeal in the light of the record and briefs, and have concluded that no reversible error is shown.”
Establishes the court's overall conclusion that the appeal lacked merit.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid Lawrence was convicted of robbery in two separate judgments. During the trial, the prosecutor made remarks that formed the basis for motions for…
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 Mistrial cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant David Lawrence-seeks reversal of two judgments of conviction of the crime of robbery. We have carefully considered the points presented on1 appeal in the light of the record and briefs, and have concluded that no reversible error is shown. Defendant’s motions for mistrial' made on voir dire and during trial were properly denied. The trial court instructed the jury to disregard the remarks of the prosecutor which were the basis for motions for mistrial. Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850, 130 So. 582; Harris v. State, 75 Fla. 527, 78 So. 526. The testimony elicited from co-defendants regarding their having pleaded guilty was not met by timely objection. English v. State, 122 Fla. 77, 164 So. 848; McCullers v. State, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 909, 913. An improper comment of the-prosecutor during the course of testimony of the witness Apfel is not considered prejudicial such as to call for reversa1- in that the effect thereof did not appear to be such that it would not have been cured by in*573structions to the jury to disregard such objectionable remarks, had request for such instruction been made. See Perry v. State, 146 Fla. 187, 200 So. 525; Morris v. State, supra.
Affirmed.
TILLMAN PEARSON, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lawrence v. State, 188 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1966)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 181 So. 2d 572.…
-
Lawrence v. State, 198 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…ted of robbery on two charges and sentenced to a term of eight years in the state penitentiary on each charge, the sentences to run consecutively. Upon appeal, the conviction and sentence were affirmed by this court. Lawrence v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 572. Defendant is now appealing from an order of the trial court denying him relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. Ch. 924 Appendix. Questions presented on appeal are: whether the trial court complied with § 932.38, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. which req…
-
Holmes v. State, 228 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…s 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 instructed the jury to disregard the remark. That action…
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
- Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850 (Fla. 1930)
- Perry v. State, 146 Fla. 187 (Fla. 1941)
- McCULLERS v. State, 143 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Dunk Harris v. State, 75 Fla. 527 (Fla. 1918)
- English v. State, 122 Fla. 77 (Fla. 1935)