JOSEPH LEO VEDDER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prejudicial Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was found guilty by a jury of (1) delivering a controlled substance to a minor child under 18 years of age and (2) possession of a controlled substance. He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment on count 1 and to imprisonment by confinement at hard labor for a term of one year on count 2, the sentences to run concurrently. The only substantial question presented on this appeal is “whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial and his motion for a new trial where the prosecutor improperly cross-examined the defendant and made inflammatory remarks to the jury.”
Our review of the record shows that the remarks, while improper, were not such as to deprive the appellant of a fair trial. An accused is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one. Lutwak v. U. S., 344 U.S. 604, 73 S.Ct. 481, 97 L.Ed. 593 (1953), and Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So. 2d 862. In the present instance, the proof of guilt is direct, clear and overwhelming. We, therefore, hold that no prejudicial error is shown. See Fla.St. § 924.33 and Brantley v. State, Fla. 1973, 279 So. 2d 290.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mackenson Cherisme v. State, 306 So. 3d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…ted by the State; was brief, isolated and inadvertent; was not referenced during the remainder of the trial; and was followed by the trial court’s curative instruction. “An accused is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one.” Vedder v. State, 313 So. 2d 49, 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (citing Lutwak v. U.S., 344 U.S. 606, 619 (1953)). See also Guzman v. State, 214 So. 3d 625, 633 (Fla. 2017) (applying abuse of discretion standard to review of trial court’s denial of motion for mistrial after witness testif…
Authorities Cited
- Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604 (U.S. 1953)
- Simpson v. State, 211 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Brantley v. State, 279 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1973)