JAMES CHARLES RICKS, 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.
James Charles Ricks was convicted of manslaughter for negligently operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and running a red light, causing fatal injuries. On appeal, Ricks challenged the trial court's rulings on three evidentiary and procedural matters, all of which the court rejected and affirmed his conviction.
The trial court did not err on any of the three grounds. Prosecutorial remarks were either fair reply to defense arguments or properly objected to and sustained. Testimony about the blood test without results did not create sufficient prejudice to warrant mistrial. The physician's testimony was properly admitted because identity can be established through circumstantial evidence and facts other than the identity of the name alone.
[1] Prosecutor's remarks in closing argument that are in reply to defense counsel's argument are permissible, even if potentially objectionable, as fair comment.
[2] When a trial court sustains a defense objection to a prosecutor's comment, the defendant must request an instruction to disregard the remark to preserve the issue for app…
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The mere fact that the jury was aware of the test would not be sufficient to show sufficient prejudice to warrant a mistrial.”
Establishes the standard for prejudice from witness testimony about excluded evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRicks operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, ran a red light while on the wrong side of the street, and caused mortal wounds t…
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 Manslaughter By Culpable Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was charged by information in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, with manslaughter. The information alleged that he was operating a motor vehicle in a negligent, careless, and reckless manner contrary to § 782.07, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., causing mortal wounds to another. He pleaded not guilty. The cause was submitted to a jury. The evidence was that he had run a red light while on the wrong side of the street and while under the influence of alcohol. The jury returned a verdict of guilty; judgment and sentence accordingly.
This appeal has been prosecuted. The appellant urges three points wherein error is alleged to have occurred in the trial court. First, that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for mistrial because of alleged improper remarks by the prosecutor in closing argument. We find no error in this regard. Certain of the remarks made by the prosecutor were in reply to an argument made by defense counsel and, even if they were objectionable [which we do not so find], they were fair comment and reply to the defense’s argument. Whitney v. State, Fla.1961, 132 So.2d 599; Evans v. State, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 892; Sadler v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 797. The other comments objected to when made were the subject of an objection by defense counsel, which at all times were sustained by the trial court. No request for an instruction to disregard the remarks was made. Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850, 130 So. 852; Burkhead v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 690.
As to the second point, error is urged in the failure of the trial court to grant a mistrial because of certain testimony presented to the jury. At the time of the trial, a police officer [who was a witness to the accident] was permitted to tes*765tify that when the defendant was taken to the hospital after the accident a blood sample was taken. The results of the test obtained from the sample were excluded from the evidence, and we find no error in the trial judge’s failure to grant a mistrial because of the testimony that had been given that a test had been made. The mere fact that the jury was aware of the test would not be sufficient to show sufficient prejudice to warrant a mistrial. Cornelius v. State, Fla. 1950, 49 So.2d 332; Gay v. City of Orlando, Fla.App. 1967, 202 So.2d 896.
The last point on appeal is that the trial court erred in not striking the testimony of a physician. The ground of the motion in the trial court was that the physician, who had treated a patient by the name of “Hicks” at the hospital on the date the accident occurred, could not identify the defendant as the said “Hicks” he had treated. The appellant for the first time on appeal now urges that the trial court erred in failing to grant the motion because a proper predicate had not been laid to permit the physician’s testimony from the hospital records. It is too late now to urge a new ground for the motion to strike, which was not presented to the trial court. Shea v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 767; Bertone v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 224 So.2d 400. The ground as made in the trial court was also without merit. The defendant was treated at the hospital, the physician had been on duty, and the hospital records indicated he had treated a patient by the name of “Hicks”. This was other evidence from which the trier of fact could determine if the “Hicks” treated by the physician was the same as the defendant. The identity of name alone is not necessary. Bayless v. United States, 9th Cir. 1967, 381 F.2d 67; Hardrick v. State, 96 Ga.App. 670, 101 S.E.2d 99; State v. Mitchner, 256 N.C. 620, 124 S.E.2d 831; Commonwealth v. Burton, 164 Pa.Super. 158, 63 A.2d 508. Identity may be shown by other facts and circumstances. Thompson v. State, 66 Fla. 206, 63 So. 423; Benton v. State, 95 Fla. 919, 117 So.2d 378.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the conviction, judgment and sentence here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Davis v. State, 281 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…prejudicial, was properly denied by the trial court. The motion was not preceded by objection thereto and request of the court to instruct the jury to disregard the same. See Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850, 130 So. 582; Ricks v. State, Fla.App.1971, 242 So. 2d 763. No fundamental error resulted therefrom. Refusal by the court to give a certain charge requested by the defendant did not constitute error herein. The appellant’s contention that prosecution for the alleged offense would not lie because of the exis…
-
Kruglak v. State, 300 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…nd prejudicial remarks of the prosecuting attorney in his closing argument were made in response to statements of defense counsel made in the initial closing argument. Cf. Evans v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 178 So. 2d 892; Ricks v. State, Fla. App.1971, 242 So. 2d 763. Moreover, no objection was interposed at the time the remarks were made. Except for fundamental error, in absence of a timely objection interposed at trial, defendant may not raise objections to remarks of the prosecutor for the first time on appea…
-
Comer v. State, 318 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…spect to the comments to which the objections, overruled by the trial judge, were made, defense counsel moved for mistrial without first making the required request for an instruction to disregard the remarks made. See Ricks v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 242 So. 2d 763. [*421] Furthermore, we do not find the remarks objectionable as the existence of a prior conviction may be established by the questioning of a witness. See State v. Young, Fla.App. 1973, 283 So. 2d 58. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and s…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850 (Fla. 1930)
- Cornelius v. State, 49 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1950)
- Bayless v. United States, 381 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1967)
- Harrison Thompson v. State, 66 Fla. 206 (Fla. 1913)
- Shea v. State, 167 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Bertone v. State, 224 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Burkhead v. State, 206 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Sadler v. State, 222 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Whitney v. State, 132 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1961)
- Merlin Evans v. State, 178 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)