KATHLEEN W. PAUL, 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 court held that the prosecutor's opening statement remarks and the trial court's jury instructions did not constitute reversible error.
The appellant was convicted of grand larceny by a jury. She appealed, arguing reversible error based on the prosecutor's opening statement and the cou…
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 Waiver Of Error By Failure To Object cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was tried by jury and found guilty of the crime of grand larceny.
On this appeal from that judgment, she contends that the prosecuting attorney for the state committed reversible error in certain remarks made by him during his opening statement to the jury. The defendant moved for a mistrial after the remarks had been made and after the jury had been excused. A review of the alleged objectionable remarks indicates that they were insufficient to justify a mistrial. In addition, there was no request by the appellant that the jury be instructed to disregard the alleged objectionable remarks.
The prosecutor had advised the jury that the state would outline the testimony which it expected the jury to hear from the witnesses on the stand in order that they could “see what it expected to present in proving its case”. The prosecuting attorney may outline the facts which he, in good faith, expects to prove and which are competent for him to prove. See 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1085. See also Tyson v. State, 87 Fla. 392, 100 So. 254 (1924); Frenette v. State, 158 Fla. 675, 29 So.2d 869 (1947). No reversible error has been clearly demonstrated in this regard.
The appellant also seeks reversal on the grounds that the court failed to instruct the jury as to each and every element of the offense for which she was charged; to-wit, grand larceny.
*465The record reflects that no objection was made by the appellant to the instructions which were given and that she failed to request any instructions whatsoever from the trial court judge. Under these circumstances we find that the trial judge did not commit reversible error in this regard. See Brown v. State, Fla. 1968, 206 So.2d 377; Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625 (1947); Grace v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 225. We have considered the other points argued by the appellant for reversal and find them to be without merit.
The judgment and sentence herein appealed is, therefore,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 400 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ning property through worthless check). On the other hand, when it does not appear that the subject of the defective charge was an issue at the trial, our courts have repeatedly declined to reverse in the absence of timely objection. Paul v. State, 209 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) (failure to instruct jury “as to each and every element of the offense of grand larceny”); Simpkin v. State, 363 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (omission of reference to or definition of dwelling in prosecution for burglary of dwell…
-
Lane v. State, 353 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…idered on appeal. See Thomas v. State, 326 So. 2d 413 (Fla.1975). We further find the statements were proper as a prosecutor may outline the facts which he, in good faith, expects to prove and which are competent for him to prove. See Paul v. State, 209 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Affirmed.…
-
Williams v. State, 947 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…contained information attributable to Nicole that was not proven at trial. In an opening statement, “[t]he prosecuting attorney may outline the facts which he, in good faith, expects to prove and which are competent for him to prove.” Paul v. State, 209 So. 2d 464, 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Here, the prosecutor laid out the facts that the State expected to present at trial. This included testimony that it stated would come from Nicole. Prior to trial the State had met with and interviewed Nicole. She gave the…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1968)
- Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582 (Fla. 1947)
- Tyson v. State, 87 Fla. 392 (Fla. 1924)
- Hewall Inv. Co. v. Scott, 158 Fla. 795 (Fla. 1947)
- Frenette v. State, 158 Fla. 675 (Fla. 1947)
- Nimrod C. Grace v. State, 206 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)