RAMON MAYAN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
An improper judicial comment during trial does not require reversal if it constitutes harmless error.
The trial judge made an improper comment during a witness's testimony, which the defendant argued warranted a mistrial. The judge instructed the jury …
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 Mistrial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
During the trial of this case, the presiding judge made a comment during the testimony of a witness that was improper because it could be interpreted by the jury as a statement that the judge did not consider the witness’s testimony to be important or presented for any justifiable purpose. Upon objection and motion for mistrial, the court instructed the jury to disregard the comment and then polled the members, receiving from them an affirmative response that the comment would in no way influence them.
On this appeal, the defendant urges that the improper comment requires a new trial. The State, on the other hand, admits the error of the trial court but contends that it is not sufficient for reversal.
We have reviewed the record and find that the proof of the defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and that the testimony of the witness concerned was of no importance to the defense of the charge. Therefore, we affirm the judgment on authority of the rule which allows us to affirm a conviction where there is-error, but no prejudicial error. See Casso v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 182 So. 2d 252, and Ennis v. State, Fla.App.1974, 300 So. 2d 325.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 456 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1984)…cting on the character or credibility of the witness. We conclude that the curative instruction was sufficient to correct any negative inference the jury may have drawn from the comment.' There is no basis for reversal on this point. Mayan v. State, 325 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert, denied, 339 So. 2d 1170 (Fla.1976); Rembert v. State, 311 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Even though the judge admitted at the bench that he found the defense witness disgusting, the words, “Get him out of here,” may be seen as…
Authorities Cited
- Casso v. State, 182 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Ennis v. State, 300 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)