GARNETT C. LEHEUP, APPELLANT,
v.
ST00ATE 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.
Garnett LeHeup appeals his conviction for assault to murder in the second degree following a jury verdict. The central issue is whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial after the State's attorney mentioned during closing argument that the defendant was beating a woman, which was later objected to and stricken.
The trial court did not commit reversible error in denying the motion for mistrial. The record is not sufficiently complete to hold that the trial court committed reversible error, and the subject complained of was part of the incident upon which the charge was based with ample evidence in the record to sustain the conviction.
“The burden is on the appellant to clearly show reversible error in the trial Court's refusal to grant a mistrial on the basis of remarks made to the jury in closing argument.”
Establishes the standard of review and allocation of burden when reviewing mistrial motions based on attorney arguments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged with assault to murder in the second degree against William Wright, Jr. During trial, the witness testified about seeing the app…
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 Burden Of Proof On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a judgment and sentence imposed on appellant in the lower Court following a jury verdict of guilty. Appellant had been charged with assault to murder in the second degree, one William Wright, Jr.
The facts bearing on this point are these: Wright, Jr., testifying for the State on direct examination, stated that about noon on the day in question he was upstairs over his father’s filling station, heard a commotion, and looked out of the window. He saw the appellant and a person he knew as Mrs. Ferguson. Then came the following question and answer:
“What was Mrs. Ferguson doing?
“She was down on the ground and he was standing on top of her.”
Appellant’s counsel requested that this question and answer be stricken and the State Attorney said:
“I will agree that it be stricken at this time.”
Thereafter, the witness testified concerning his running downstairs because of threats made by appellant to Wright, Sr., the witness’ father, and about the assault on him. All of the events took place within a period of a few minutes.
Appellant’s position is that the trial Court erred in denying his motion for mistrial made in the absence of the jury, but before they retired for deliberation. During the State’s argument, mention had been made that the appellant was beating the Ferguson woman. His counsel thereupon objected, the objection was sustained, and the jury was instructed to disregard the statement. The motion for a mistrial was then made and was denied.
The closing arguments were not transcribed, and all that appears in the record is the following statement made by the trial Court.
“All I have stated is that I recollect mention was made by counsel for the State in his argument that the defendant was beating the Ferguson woman and that’s all I recall about it and the objection was made at that time and the Court did sustain the objection and told the Jury to disregard that statement made by counsel. In addition to your motion having been made for a mistrial and that having been denied by the Court. That’s all I know about it, Mr. Hobbs.”
*922The burden is on the appellant to clearly show reversible error in the trial Court’s refusal to grant a mistrial on the basis of remarks made to the jury in closing argument. The record is not sufficiently complete in this regard for us to hold that the trial Court committed reversible error. Lang v. State, 137 Fla. 128, 187 So. 786. Actually, the subject complained of in the instant case was a part of the incident upon which the charge against appellant was based, and the record contains ample evidence to sustain the conviction.
The judgment of the lower Court is affirmed.
LILIES, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams-MacWilliams Indus., Inc. v. Heart-A-Tampa, 207 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1967)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 201 So. 2d 920.…
-
Sperber v. Murray Berkowitz, 241 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…6] that there was conflicting evidence before the trial court upon each of them. The record reveals competent substantial evidence to support the findings of the trial judge. Williams McWilliams Industries, Inc. v. Heart-a-Tampa, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 201 So. 2d 920. In addition appellants urge that the counterclaim for specific performance should not have been granted because the contract is indefinite, ambiguous and one-sided. We have examined the contract and the evidence submitted upon these issues and fin…
Authorities Cited
- Lang v. State, 137 Fla. 128 (Fla. 1939)