MILLER
v.
STATE
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a manslaughter conviction because the prosecutor's improper cross-examination and conduct denied the defendant a fair trial, following precedent from Thomas v. State.
The court reversed the conviction and granted a new trial because the prosecutor's improper conduct paralleled the reversible error found in Thomas v. State, and all parties agreed reversal was warranted.
“The facts in the case now under consideration are almost analogous to the facts set forth and shown by the record in the case of Thomas' v. State, supra.”
Establishes the basis for applying the Thomas precedent to reverse the conviction due to similar prosecutorial misconduct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiller was convicted of manslaughter. The record showed that the prosecutor engaged in improper actions, conduct, and cross-examination of the appella…
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 Reversible Error cases and more on FLexlaw
MATHEWS, Justice.
This is an appeal from a conviction of manslaughter. The principal assignment of error is with reference to the actions, conduct and cross-examination of the appellant by the prosecutor. The appellant relies upon the case of Thomas v. State, Fla., 59 So. 2d 517, where the case was reversed because of the actions, conduct and cross-examination of the prosecuting attorney. The facts in the case now under consideration are almost analogous to the facts set forth and shown 'by the record in the case of Thomas' v. State, supra.
The Attorney General, with frankness and candor, has filed a brief in this case in which it is stated:
“The State concedes that the judgment below should be reversed on the authority of Thomas v. State, Fla., 59 So. 2d 517.”
This case is unusual in that all parties to the proceeding agree that the case should •be reversed and a new trial granted.
Reversed for a new trial upon the authority of Thomas v. State, Fla., 59 So. 2d 517.
ROBERTS, C. J., and' TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin v. Louie L. Wainwright, 428 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. 1970)…Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F. 2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F. 2d 526, Part I. . See F.S.A. § 90.08; McArthur v. Cook, 99 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1957); Mead v. State, 86 So. 2d 778 (Fla.1956); Miller v. State, 67 So. 2d 327 (Fla.1953); Thomas v. State, 59 So. 2d 517 (Fla.1952). . If these contentions involve such glaring errors of state law, it is not shown why they were not presented on Martin’s direct appeal in the state courts. See Martin v. State, 195 So. 2d 9 (Fl…
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. State, 59 So.2d 517 (Fla. 1952)