ELMER WATSON, 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.
Elmer Watson was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to grant a mistrial after a courtroom outburst by a bystander during the prosecutor's closing argument.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial. The decision to grant or deny a mistrial motion is within the trial judge's discretion, and the record demonstrates no abuse of that discretion.
[1] The granting or denial of a motion for mistrial is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge.
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial when the jury affirmatively states it was not prejudiced by an outburst and can remain fair a…
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“It has long been recognized in Florida jurisprudence that the granting or denial of a motion for mistrial is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge.”
Establishes the standard of review: mistrial decisions are discretionary with the trial judge
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWatson entered the victim Archibold Pinder's print shop and asked to borrow money. When Pinder refused, Watson shot and killed him. It is admitted tha…
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 Fair Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
Elmer Watson was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and was sentenced by the trial court to life imprisonment. His major point on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a mistrial following an allegedly prejudicial outburst in the courtroom during the course of the trial.
The evidence adduced at trial reveals that the fatal shooting of Archibold Pinder occurred after the defendant entered the deceased’s print shop and asked Pinder if he could borrow a sum of money. The shooting occurred after Pinder refused to make the loan. It is admitted that the defendant shot the deceased. The only question is whether the shooting was accidental. From testimony given at defendant’s trial the jury was made aware of a previous unsuccessful attempt by defendant to borrow money from the deceased a few days before the shooting occurred. Immediately following the first refusal, defendant threatened Pin-der by saying in part, “One of these days I going to have to kill you . . .”
During defendant’s trial, while the prosecutor was giving his closing argument to the jury, a bystander in the courtroom screamed, “He killed two people and he’s not going to get away with this one.” Immediately after this disturbance the demonstrator was removed from the courtroom and the trial judge polled the jury to determine whether the jurors had been prejudiced by this outburst thereby denying de*408fendant’s right to a fair trial. All of the jurors affirmatively stated that they were not influenced and that they could remain fair and impartial. Defendant moved for a mistrial based upon prejudice accruing to defendant as a result of this incident, but this motion was denied.
It has long been recognized in Florida jurisprudence that the granting or denial of a motion for mistrial is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge. Hoover v. State, Fla.App.197l, 252 So.2d 872; Reis v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So.2d 666; McCoy v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 588; Garcia v. State, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 318. On review of the record on appeal we find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the defense motion for a mistrial. Goodman v. State ex rel. Furlong, Fla.1971, 247 So.2d 47; Adkins v. Smith, Fla.1967, 205 So.2d 530.
We have examined defendant’s remaining points on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Street v. State, 636 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 1994)…edge of it. A motion for mistrial was denied. Given the isolated nature of the incident, we find that the action taken by the trial judge was sufficient to determine whether the jurors were improperly influenced by the comments. See Watson v. State, 270 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); see also Scull v. State, 533 So. 2d 1137 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1037, 109 S.Ct. 1937, 104 L.Ed.2d 408 (1989) (trial judge adequately conducted individual voir dire of jurors to determine whether they were improperly i…
-
Weber v. State, 501 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…he guilty verdict in Weber’s first trial is entirely untrustworthy, and the prejudice of jurors learning of it is therefore even greater to the defendant than had the case been reversed on some other ground. .We have not overlooked Watson v. State, 270 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), but it simply does not involve information concerning the defendant being previously convicted of the offense for which he is standing trial, the prejudice of [*1385] which, as we have said, is of a far greater magnitude than inf…
-
Jones v. State, 505 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…o. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), cause dismissed, 443 So. 2d 981 (Fla.1983); Evans v. State, 422 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Moore v. State, 418 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982);. see Parrish v. State, 366 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Watson v. State, 270 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); cf. Weber v. State, 501 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).…
Authorities Cited
- Reis v. State, 248 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Adkins v. Smith, 205 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1967)
- Garcia v. State, 142 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- McCOY v. State, 175 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- The Honorable Murray Goodman v. State of Fla. ex rel. Lorin Lee Furlong, 247 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1971)
- Conejo v. State, 252 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Hoover v. State, 252 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)