ROY WINNEN BRIDGES, 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 appellate court affirmed the conviction of the appellant, finding that the State Attorney's remarks during trial, which the appellant argued constituted improper comments on his silence and bad character, were not prejudicial.
No, the court held that the State Attorney's remarks did not warrant a mistrial as they could not reasonably be interpreted as prejudicial to the appellant.
“The jury found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to eight years in the state penitentiary.”
Establishes the jury's verdict and the sentence imposed.
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 found guilty by a jury of attempting to break and enter a building with intent to commit grand larceny and possession of burglary to…
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 Improper Character Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was tried before a jury on an information charging him with attempting to break and enter a building with intent to commit a felony, to-wit, grand larceny, and possession of burglary tools. The jury found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to eight years in the state penitentiary. On appeal, he contends, (1) that the court erred in not granting the appellant’s motion for mistrial when the State Attorney in his argument to the jury stated that the appellant did not take the stand in his own defense; (2) that the trial court erred in not granting the appellant’s motion for mistrial when the State Attorney in his opening argument and on direct examination inferred that the appellant had a bad character and criminal history by references to pictures posted in a police station.
A review of the record convinces us that the remarks of the State Attorney do not lend themselves to the connotation given by the appellant under any reasonable view of the circumstances. Therefore reversal is denied on the two contentions. See Hand v. State, 188 So.2d 364-367 (Fla.App.1966).
Affirmed.