JOSEPHINE COHEN AND SIMON COHEN, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
SINGAPORE HOLDING CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a final judgment for the defendant, holding that the trial judge's reinstruction of the jury, despite potential emphasis, was a fair attempt to clarify the charges and ensure a proper verdict.
No, the trial judge did not err. The reinstruction was a fair attempt to clarify the charges and ensure the jury understood them without improper influence.
“We find that the trial judge attempted to reinstruct the jury fairly and to remove any doubt from the minds of the jurors that they misunderstood the charges or were improperly influenced by his reading of the charges.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for finding the judge's actions permissible.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs, Josephine and Simon Cohen, appealed a final judgment entered for the defendant, Singapore Holding Corporation. They argued that the tr…
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.
Josephine Cohen and Simon Cohen, plaintiffs below, seek reversal of a final judgment for the defendant, Singapore Holding Corporation.
They assert that the trial judge committed error in reinstructing the jury in such a way as to give undue emphasis or repetition to certain charges which prejudiced the jury to return a verdict for the defendant.
We have reviewed the circumstances under which the trial judge recalled and recharged the jurors and the charges and statements of the judge which are objected to by this appeal.
We find that the trial judge attempted to reinstruct the jury fairly and to remove any doubt from the minds of the jurors that they misunderstood the charges or were improperly influenced by his reading of the charges. See Wilkinson v. Grover, Fla.App.1965, 181 So.2d 591; and Solomon v. State, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 492.
For these reasons, the final judgment be and the same is hereby
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dade Cnty. Classroom Teachers' Ass'n, Inc. v. Rubin, 258 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…rdicts of guilty of contempt. Therefore appellants’ points one and two are without merit. We have also considered appellants’ points four and five concerning jury instructions. See as to point 5: Cohen v. Singapore Holding Corporation, Fla.App.1969, 228 So. 2d 129. In the light of the record here, we express the view that these were at most harmless errors and do not warrant reversal. Next appellants argue that where the trial judge, while the jury was deliberating at the second trial in April, 1969, indicat…
Authorities Cited
- Solomon v. State, 145 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Wilkinson v. Grover, 181 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)