LARRY A. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Mistrial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to two concurrent two-year sentences. On appeal, the only substantial question presented is whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for a mistrial because of allegedly improper comments by the State Attorney. The appellant had made an allegation of police brutality when he took the stand but had not mentioned the allegation at any prior judicial appearance. We hold that questions and argument on this point were proper. See State v. Hines, Fla.1967, 195 So. 2d 550; Reilly v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 796; Lebowitz v. State, Fla.App.1975, 313 So. 2d 473. See also Mr. Justice Marshall’s discussion of Raffel v. United States, 271 U.S. 494, 46 S.Ct. 566, 70 L.Ed. 1054 (1926), in the recent opinion of United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 95 S.Ct. 2133, 45 L.Ed.2d 99 (1975).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arbogast v. State, 340 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…impeachment purposes has the right to comment as defendant’s failure to deny or explain incriminating facts to the police. See Reilly v. State, 212 So. 2d 796 (Fla.3d DCA 1968); Lebowitz v. State, 313 So. 2d 473 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Williams v. State, 320 So. 2d 434 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). Defendant has failed to demonstrate fundamental error and further has not shown that his trial was a mockery or a farce. See Quesada v. State, 321 So. 2d 442 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of his motion for…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1975)
- Raffel v. United States, 271 U.S. 494 (U.S. 1926)
- Lebowitz v. State, 313 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- State v. Major Hines, 195 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1967)
- Reilly v. State, 212 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)