TAYLOR HEBER ANDREWS, APPELLANT,
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.
The appellate court affirmed a conviction for possession of an explosive, finding that the trial court's instruction to disregard prejudicial remarks by the prosecutor cured any potential harm to the defendant's right to a fair trial.
No, the remarks were not so prejudicial as to require a mistrial. Even if they were improper, the trial court's instruction to the jury to disregard the statements removed any prejudicial effect.
“We do not consider the statements so prejudicial as to constitute reversible error.”
Establishes the court's primary finding regarding the prosecutor's remarks.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted by a jury for knowingly possessing an explosive. During the opening statement, the prosecuting attorney made remarks that …
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 By Prosecutor cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant appeals from a judgment and sentence pursuant to a jury verdict finding him guilty of knowingly having possession of an explosive, in violation of § 552.101 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
Appellant first urges reversal on the ground that certain remarks made by the prosecuting attorney in his opening statement to the jury were so prejudicial as to call for a mistrial. We can not agree. Appellant’s motion for mistrial was denied by the trial judge and followed up by an instruction to the jury to disregard the statements made by the prosecuting attorney which related to hearsay. We do not consider the statements so prejudicial as to constitute reversible error. However, if they were improper we think that the court’s instruction to the jury to disregard the statements complained of removed any prejudicial effect they might have had on the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Appellant’s other points have also been considered and found to be without merit. See Johnson v. State, Fla.1961, 130 So.2d 599; Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 654; see also Burns v. State, 150 Fla. 869, 9 So.2d 106; Lewis v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 744.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Andrews v. State, 209 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1968)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 201 So. 2d 473.…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Johnson v. State, 130 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1961)
- Burns v. State, 150 Fla. 869 (Fla. 1942)
- Lewis v. State, 181 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)