HENRY COOPER, 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.
Henry Cooper was convicted by jury of robbery and carrying a concealed firearm, receiving consecutive sentences of 75 years and 5 years. On appeal, Cooper challenged the admission of a remark suggesting prior arrests, the sufficiency of evidence, and the imposition of consecutive sentences, but the appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentences.
The court held that any error in admitting the officer's remark was harmless because Cooper cured it by admitting in his own testimony that he had prior trouble. The evidence was sufficient to support conviction. Consecutive sentences were properly imposed because robbery and carrying a concealed firearm were separate and distinct offenses, not facets of the same transaction.
[1] A defendant's own testimony admitting prior facts can cure any error from a witness's statement reflecting upon the defendant's past criminal record.
[2] A defendant's statement indicating familiarity with legal procedures due to prior experience does not necessarily constitute reversible error if the defendant later admit…
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“Error may have been committed by the security officer in his comment reflecting upon defendant's past criminal record. However, this was subsequently cured by facts admitted by defendant while testifying in his own behalf.”
Establishes the harmless error doctrine applied by the court—that any error was cured when the defendant himself admitted prior troubles in testimony.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA private security officer made a remark during trial indicating that when arrested, Cooper stated he already knew what to do from prior experience, s…
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 Prior Arrests cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of a jury verdict finding him guilty of robbery and carrying a concealed firearm. He was sentenced to serve consecutive terms of seventy-five years for robbery and five years for carrying a concealed firearm.
*860Appellant’s first point on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying defense counsel’s motion for mistrial which arose as the result of alleged prejudicial remarks made by a private security officer. The officer stated that upon arresting defendant and warning him not to say anything, defendant responded by saying that he already knew what to do from prior experience. Appellant contends that this remark indicated to the jury that defendant had been previously arrested and it was, therefore, highly prejudicial and an improper attack on defendant’s character.
The problem before this court is whether any error was committed by allowing this statement before the jury and if this was reversible error. Error may have been committed by the security officer in his comment reflecting upon defendant’s past criminal record. However, this was subsequently cured by facts admitted by defendant while testifying in his own behalf. In Meade v. State, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 776, cert. den. 355 U.S. 920, 78 S.Ct. 351, 2 L.Ed.2d 279, a police officer recited a conversation between another police officer and the defendant in which the second officer felt defendant was “aware of his civil rights as he had been in trouble before”. Defendant’s objection to the statement was sustained but a mistrial was denied. No prejudicial error resulted from this because defendant in his own testimony related to the jury that he had been in trouble before.
Cases from other jurisdictions involving related circumstances are abundant. All these cases hold that the alleged error complained of could not in any way have been prejudicial to defendant since defendant cured any error by admitting in his own testimony the prior facts. Recent cases include Meade v. Cox, 438 F.2d 323 (4 Cir. 1971); State v. Ward, 9 N.C.App. 684, 177 S.E.2d 317 (1971); Williams v. State, 250 Ark. 859, 467 S.W.2d 740 (1971); State v. Pigott, 1 Ohio App.2d 22, 197 N.E.2d 911 (1964); People v. DePrima, 172 Cal.App.2d 109, 341 P.2d 840 (1959).
In view of the evidence in the record, the appellant’s second point on appeal is without merit.
The third point urges that the court erred in imposing the sentences on both the robbery and carrying a concealed firearm counts of the information in that the two counts were facets of the same transaction. This position is untenable. The record discloses that they were separate and distinct offenses. Footman v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 356; State v. Conrad, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 174.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Conrad, 243 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Footman v. State, 203 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- La Marca v. New York, 355 U.S. 920 (U.S. 1958)
- Donohue v. Vill. of Fox Point, 355 U.S. 920 (U.S. 1958)
- Meade v. State, 96 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 1957)
- Meade v. COX, 438 F.2d 323 (4th Cir. 1971)