BOBBY JOE HARRELSON, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Bobby Joe Harrelson was convicted of robbery and sentenced to twenty-five years. He appealed arguing that the trial court erred by denying a continuance due to prejudicial news coverage and that the prosecutor's closing argument was inflammatory. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion regarding the continuance denial and no improper inflammatory argument.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance, and the prosecutor's argument was not improper inflammatory speech. The court distinguished this case from Oliver v. State where a confession was published and was the primary evidence of guilt, whereas here other evidence existed beyond any media coverage.
[1] A trial court's ruling on a motion for continuance is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will not be disturbed unless such abuse is shown.
[2] A defendant cannot complain that a prosecutor's closing argument was inflammatory if the argument constitutes a fair comment on facts inferable from the evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 matter of a continuance lies within the discretion of the trial judge, and his ruling denying a continuance will not be disturbed unless it has been shown that the court abused its discretion”
Establishes the standard of review for denial of continuance motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to twenty-five years to run consecutively to a federal sentence. News stories were published shortly …
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 Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was convicted of robbery and now seeks reversal of his conviction and sentence of twenty-five years to run consecutively to a sentence being served in the federal penitentiary. The primary contentions raised on appeal are that the trial court erred in failing to grant a continuance of the trial because of news stories published shortly before trial was to commence; and, secondly, appellant contends the prosecutor’s closing argument to the jury was so inflammatory as to prejudice the jury against the defendant.
We have carefully reviewed the issues raised by appellant in light of the record and after careful consideration of the briefs submitted by respective counsel, it is our view that no reversible error has been demonstrated. The law is well settled that the matter of a continuance lies within the discretion of the trial judge, and his ruling denying a continuance will not be disturbed unless it has been shown that the court abused its discretion. Robinson v. State, 256 So.2d 390 (Fla.App.1972). No abuse of discretion in this regard is reflected on this record. Appellant’s reliance on Oliver v. State, 250 So.2d 888 (Fla.1971), is misplaced. In Oliver, the text of a confession given by the defendant was published in the local newspaper. That did not occur in the instant case. In Oliver, there was virtually no evidence of guilt adduced against the defendant other than the confession which was given wide publicity in the press. In Oliver, the absence of other evidence of guilt enhanced the criti-cality of the role the confession played in obtaining the conviction. No analogous circumstances appear here.
The contention centering on the prosecutor's argument is likewise unavailing. A defendant in a criminal trial cannot be heard to complain that the prosecutor’s argument was inflammatory when the argument constitutes a fair comment on the facts which may be inferred from the *527evidence. In such cases, it is the facts — of which the defendant was the architect— that inflame the jury, not the argument. No error has been shown in this regard. Spencer v. State, 133 So.2d 729 (Fla.1961).
WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD, K., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Keaton v. Keaton, 634 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…for continuance after he had fired his fourth attorney shortly before trial. A continuance lies within the trial court’s discretion and a ruling denying a continuance will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is shown. Harrelson v. State, 259 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). We find no abuse of discretion in the record before us. Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in granting the wife primary physical custody of their child. The court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the trie…
-
Jordan v. State, 419 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…on a prior occasion. Appellant alleges this error was further compounded when the trial court gave an instruction on flight to avoid prosecution. A motion for a continuance is directed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Harrelson v. State, 259 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). The motion for continuance was made while, the state was presenting its case in chief, and there was nothing to bar trial counsel from making contact with Dr. Krantz, so that he might testify in behalf of appellant during the de…
-
Riggins v. State, 283 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)…n all the facts and the evidence are reviewed, as shown from the record, we do not find any prejudice to the defendant’s trial. Therefore, the judgment and sentence are hereby affirmed. RAWLS, C. J., and SPECTOR, J., concur. . Harrelson v. State, 259 So. 2d 526 (Fla.App. 1st, 1972).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Emmitt Monroe Spencer v. State, 133 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1961)
- Oliver v. State, 250 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1971)
- Robinson v. State, 256 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)