DARREL E. FRAZIER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1974-11-12
No. 74-584
Before BARKDULL, C. ]., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.
303 So. 2d 48 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1974) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a conviction for murder in the second degree presents the question of whether the trial court committed reversible error when it denied a defense motion for mistrial because the assistant state attorney made improper remarks in his closing argument. We hold that, while the attorney’s statements may have been outside the scope of arguments permitted, they were not of such a nature that they could not have been completely cured by objection to the court and instruction to the jury. Cf. Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850, 130 So. 582 (1930). Nor were such statements of such a nature as to have deprived the appellant of a fair trial. Upon this record, no abuse of the trial judge’s discretion in such matters has'been shown. See Wingate v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So. 2d 44.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Monnit Louis v. State, 567 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
    …om singled him out as a foreigner, and thus made a negative impression on the jurors. A motion for mistrial should be granted when error has been committed that cannot be cured by objection to the court and instruction to the jury. Frazier v. State, 303 So. 2d 48, 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Gray v. State, 296 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). In this case, during voir dire defense counsel asked the prospective jurors questions and made statements that clearly indicated that the defendant was Haitian. Therefore, it…
    1 / 2

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw