DONALD JOSEPH BRADY, 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 for larceny of an automobile, finding no substantial merit in his contentions that the trial court erred in denying a mistrial due to a question about federal probation and that he was denied the right to present final argument.
No, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for mistrial, and the defendant was not denied a fair trial. Both contentions lack substantial merit.
“Appellant contends on appeal that (1) the court erred in denying his motion for mistrial which was made after a witness was questioned concerning the defendant's being on federal probation; and (2) he was denied a fair trial in that neither he nor his counsel were afforded the right to present the final argument at the close of all the evidence.”
This quote outlines the two main arguments presented by the appellant on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDonald Joseph Brady was charged with larceny of an automobile and using a vehicle without consent. He waived a jury trial and was found guilty of larc…
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 Larceny Of An Automobile cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Donald Joseph Brady, was charged by a two count information with larceny of an automobile and using a vehicle without the owner’s consent. He pleaded not guilty and waived jury trial. Upon trial he was found guilty of larceny of an automobile as charged in count 1 and not guilty as to count 2. A sentence of eighteen months in the state penitentiary was imposed by the court.
Appellant contends on appeal that (1) the court erred in denying his motion for mistrial which was made after a witness was questioned concerning the defendant’s being on federal probation; and (2) he was denied a fair trial in that neither he nor his counsel were afforded the right to present the final argument at the close of all the evidence.
We have carefully considered appellant’s contentions in the light of the briefs, arguments of counsel and the record on appeal and find them to be without substantial merit. Prince v. Aucilla River Naval Stores Co., 103 Fla. 605, 137 So. 886 (1931); Willoughby v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 10; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 484.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Warren v. State, 221 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…ed out by the Court. Morton v. State, Fla.App.1968, 205 So. 2d 662; Triana v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So. 2d 339; Garcia v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So. 2d 340; Leonard v. United States, C.A.5 Fla. 1967, 386 F. 2d 423; Brady v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 852. [*426] And in any event the denial of a motion for mistrial is always largely in the discretion of the trial Judge. Prokos v. State, Fla.App.1968, 209 So. 2d 484, and cases therein cited. In the case of State ex rel. Hamm v. Smith, Fla.App.1968, 2…
Authorities Cited
- Prince v. Aucilla River Naval Stores Co., 103 Fla. 605 (Fla. 1931)
- Willoughby v. State, 203 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Williams v. State, 201 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)