FRANK HARVEY AND JESSE WEBSTER JOYNER, APPELLANTS,
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.
Frank Harvey and Jesse Webster Joyner were convicted of lottery-related offenses. They appealed claiming the trial court's jury admonishment and clarifying instruction improperly commented on their failure to testify, denying them a fair trial.
The trial court did not err. The admonishment was not prejudicial, and any possible prejudice was cured by the clarifying charge. The clarifying charge was a proper instruction that did not constitute improper comment on defendants' failure to testify.
“You are not to discuss this case among yourselves or you are not to permit anyone to talk to you about the case other than what transpires here in open Court, until you have heard all the evidence that is to be introduced both by the State and by the defendants”
The trial court's admonishment that defendants argued indirectly commented on their failure to testify
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarvey and Joyner were tried on charges of aiding and assisting in promoting and conducting a lottery, unlawfully setting up and promoting a lottery, …
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 Comment On Failure To Testify cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendants, Frank Harvey and Jesse Webster Joyner, appeal from judgments entered upon a jury verdict finding the defendants guilty of aiding and assisting in promoting and conducting a lottery; unlawfully setting up, promoting and conducting a lottery; and being interested in and connected with a lottery.
At the outset of the trial the trial court, in admonishing the jury as to their responsibilities and in instructing them as to their behavior during the course of the trial, made the following statement:
“ * * * You are not to discuss this case among yourselves or you are not to permit anyone to talk to you about the case other than what transpires here in open Court, until you have heard all the evidence that is to be introduced both by the State and by the defendants * *
The defendants moved for a mistrial on the grounds that in so admonishing the jury the court called attention to the fact that testimony was to be presented by the state and the defendants and therefore indirectly commented on the failure of the defendants to take the stand.
The court denied the motion and informed defendants that he would make a-, clarifying statement to the jury to the effect that under Florida law a defendant is not required to testify and that if the defendant does not do so the jury shall not' indulge any presumption against the defendant by reason of such failure. The-defendants objected to the court’s proposed clarifying charge on the grounds that it would only further accentuate defendants’ failure to take the stand. Immediately upon the reconvening of the jury the trial' court gave a clarifying charge over defendants’ objections.
On appeal the defendants argue that the trial court erred in denying defendants’ motion for mistrial. Defendants contend that, the trial court’s admonishment to the jury constituted prejudicial comment on the defendants’ failure to testify. They further' assert that the clarifying charge only constituted additional prejudicial comment on' the failure of defendants to testify. Defendants urge that the total effect of the court’s admonishment and clarifying' charge to the jury was so prejudicial that a miscarriage of justice resulted.
The admonishment by the trials court was not prejudicial to the defendants. Any possible prejudice resulting therefrom-was cured by the judge’s clarifying charge.. The clarifying charge, although not requested by defendants, was not an improper' comment on the possible failure of the defendants to testify. Fogler v. State, 1928, 96 Fla. 68, 117 So. 694. The trial judge exercised great care to ensure that the defendants received a fair trial.
We have examined the other points-raised by the defendants and find them; without merit.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., and WALDEN, J., con-; cur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lucious Andrews, Jr. v. State, 443 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1983)…dant. Fla.Std.Jury Inst. (Crim.) 1.01, n. 1. The giving of similar instructions over the objection of the defendant is not error. Carlton v. State, 111 Fla. 777, 149 So. 767 (1933); Fogler v. State, 96 Fla. 68, 117 So. 694 (1928); Harvey v. State, 187 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 194 So. 2d 619 (Fla.1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 923, 87 S.Ct. 894, 17 L.Ed.2d 795 (1967). See also Lakeside v. Oregon, 435 U.S. 333, 98 S.Ct. 1091, 55 L.Ed.2d 319 (1978). However, the trial court in the instant case o…
-
Harvey v. State, 194 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1966)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 187 So. 2d 59.…
-
Edwards v. State, 216 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…The crime was complete by the breaking and entering the automobile with intent to commit the larceny charged.” With reference to the second question dealing with the jury instruction, we cite as authority the case of Harvey v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So. 2d 59. In that case this court held that an admonishment by the trial court to the jury that they should not discuss the case with anyone until they had heard all of the evidence presented from the State and the defendants was not prejudicial to the defen…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fogler v. State, 96 Fla. 68 (Fla. 1928)