WILLIAM C. BREEN, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a forgery conviction, holding that the State's irrelevant questioning about the defendant's prior actions prejudiced the defendant and warranted a new trial.
Yes, the State's attempt to elicit irrelevant information concerning the defendant's prior actions injuriously affected the defendant's rights, requiring a new trial.
“We hold from a review of the record that the State's attempt to elicit information concerning prior actions of the defendant which were not shown to be relevant or material to the pending charges so injuriously .affected the rights of the defendant as to require the granting of defendant's motions for mistrial or for a new trial.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for reversing the conviction based on prejudicial questioning.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was charged with six counts of forgery. After a jury found him guilty on all counts, he was sentenced to one year imprisonment on each c…
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 Forgery cases and more on FLexlaw
A six-count information charging the defendant with forgery was filed in the Criminal Court of Record, Dade County. Following a jury trial and verdict of guilty on all six counts, the defendant was adjudged guilty and sentenced to imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a term of one year on each count, the sentences to run consecutively.
We hold from a review of the record that the State’s attempt to elicit information concerning prior actions of the defendant which were not shown to be relevant or material to the pending charges so injuriously .affected the rights of the defendant as to require the granting of defendant’s motions for mistrial or for a new trial. Gluck v. State, Fla. 1952, 62 So.2d 71; Andrews v. State, Fla. App.1965, 172 So.2d 505; Urga v. State, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 719. The judgment appealed from is reversed and a new trial awarded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Andrews v. State, 172 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Diamante Urga v. State, 155 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Gluck v. State, 62 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1952)