MARY LOUISE MIORI, 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.
Mary Louise Miori appealed her manslaughter conviction, arguing that inflammatory prosecutorial remarks and admission of her confession over objection constituted reversible error. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding the remarks harmless in light of the lesser-included offense verdict and the confession admission justified by trial court findings.
Both contentions are without merit. While the prosecutorial remarks may have been improper as they implied the homicide was wanton and the perpetrator depraved, any error was harmless given the jury's verdict for the substantially lesser included offense of manslaughter. The trial court's admission of the confession was justified based on conflicting testimony and findings within the trial judge's province.
“The rendition of a verdict for the substantially lesser included offense of manslaughter shows that if the remarks were improper (and we do hold that they were), the error was harmless.”
Establishes the harmless error doctrine applied to inflammatory prosecutorial remarks when the jury convicts of a lesser offense.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiori was indicted for second-degree murder but convicted of the lesser included offense of manslaughter and sentenced to ten years imprisonment. The …
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 Inflammatory Remarks cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant Mary Louise Miori was indicted for murder in the second degree. She was tried and convicted of the lesser included offense of manslaughter, sentenced to confinement for ten years, and prosecuted this appeal claiming reversible error in two respects.
First, appellant contends that certain remarks made before the jury by counsel for the state were of an inflammatory nature *209and that the court erred in failing to admonish counsel and in denying her motion for new trial because thereof. Second, it is contended the trial court erred in admitting her confession, over objection on the ground it was not freely and voluntarily made and was “obtained in violation of the appellant’s constitutional rights.”
We have considered those contentions of the appellant in the light of the record and briefs and find them to be without merit. No useful purpose would be served by reciting the sordid facts of the case leading up to and at the.«time of the homicide. Th^^sdmments at the trial which are complained of were consistent with the facts disclosed in the evidence. They consisted mainly of implying the homicide was wanton and the perpetrator depraved. The rendition of a verdict for the substantially lesser included offense of manslaughter shows that if the remarks were improper (and we do hold that they were), the error was harmless.
Appellant’s point regarding the confession is not supported by the record. Testimony relating to the facts she relies on in that connection was in conflict, and such that the findings and ruling of the trial judge thereon which led to admission of the confession were within his province and justified. The defendant testified at the trial and repeated substantially the matters stated in her confession made earlier. We do not consider that such testimony by her would serve to cure an error in the admission of her confession if otherwise inadmissible, nor do we consider repetition of such facts by her in her testimony as amounting to an admission of guilt of the offense charged (see White v. Pepersack, 4 Cir. 1965, 352 F.2d 470), but rather as an effort (apparently successful) to show absence of proof of all elements of the crime charged, and as presenting facts relied on in reduction of the offense or in mitigation. It should be noted however that the defendant in her testimony did not repudiate the confession
For the reasons stated, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Earnest Collins, Jr. v. State, 197 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…So. 2d 331; Calloway v. State, Fla., 189 So. 2d 617; Dampier v. State, Fla.App., 180 So. 2d 183; Male v. State, Fla.App., 189 So. 2d 521; Thomas v. State, Fla., 92 So. 2d 621; Epperly v. State, Fla.App., 189 So. 2d 531; and Miori v. State, Fla.App., 189 So. 2d 208. The confession which the majority opinion holds inadmissible was one given freely and voluntarily by the defendant and does not violate the precepts of Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977. It was obtained by…
-
Laboda v. State, 196 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Collins v. State, Fla. 1965, 180 So. 2d 340; Casso v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 252; McCumber v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 627; Miori v. State, Fla.App.1966, 189 So. 2d 208.…
Authorities Cited
- White v. Pepersack, 352 F.2d 470 (4th Cir. 1965)