STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
HENRY JAMES WOODSON, 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.
The State appealed a trial judge's order granting a new trial to Woodson, who was convicted of possession and sale of barbiturates. The judge believed three trial errors, though individually harmless, collectively warranted a new trial; the appellate court reversed, finding the errors either harmless individually or non-existent.
The court held that the two remaining trial errors were harmless error, the third alleged error did not actually occur, and the trial judge abused discretion in granting a new trial. Each error was harmless because defendant had already admitted prior conviction, testimony was early and cured by instruction, and no objection was timely made.
[1] A reference to mug shots, while generally error, may be deemed harmless error if the defendant has already admitted to a prior conviction.
[2] A defendant's rejection of a curative instruction can weigh against a claim of error.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A reference to mug shots has been held by the Supreme Court of Florida, Loftin v. State, 273 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1973), to be error, but harmless under some circumstances.”
Establishes the legal standard that mug shot references constitute error but may be harmless depending on circumstances
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWoodson was tried and convicted of possession and sale of barbiturates. During trial, an officer testified about arranging a rendezvous with an underc…
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 Curative Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
NATALIE BASKIN, Associate Judge.
This is an appeal by the State from an order granting defendant a new trial. The trial judge found that although each of the three alleged errors committed during trial by jury might well have been harmless, the conjunction of the three took the case out of the harmless error category.
Defendant was tried and convicted of possession of barbiturates and of sale of barbiturates. During the trial the officer testified on direct examination that he and an undercover policeman arranged a rendezvous point at a motel and would go over the “known dealers”. The Court sustained an objection to the alleged error, denied Motion for Mistrial and gave a curative instruction.
The second alleged error occurred during cross-examination of the undercover agent by defense counsel. The witness was asked if he had ever seen the defendant before the date specified. He replied: “Yes, I had. Well, not personally. I had seen him before from mug shots.” No objection was made at this time. After the jury was excused for the night, defense counsel made a Motion for Mistrial. Defense counsel refused a curative instruction. Motion for Mistrial was denied.
The third alleged error upon which Order Granting New Trial was predicated was a reference by the prosecutor in closing argument to defendant as a convicted felon when defendant had testified only that he had been convicted of a crime.
The third error caused the trial Court to find that the conjunction of three harmless errors required a new trial. It appears from the record, however, that the third error did not actually occur; the prosecutor stated only that defendant had been in trouble before and had been convicted.
We find that the two remaining errors upon which Motion for New Trial was granted were harmless error and we reverse.
A reference to mug shots has been held by the Supreme Court of Florida, Loftin v. State, 273 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1973), to be error, but harmless under some circumstances. A reference to mug shots is generally held to be error since it may convey to the jury that defendant has previously committed a crime. Defendant admitted on direct examination that he had previously been convicted one time; reference to mug shots, was therefore, harmless error. Peterson v. State, 293 So. 2d 762 (Fla.App.1974).
Furthermore, no objection was made at the time and the offer to give a curative instruction was rejected. Anderson v. State, 230 So. 2d 704 (Fla.App.1970). Gagnon v. State, 212 So. 2d 337 (Fla.App.1968).
The comment regarding known ‘ drug dealers was also harmless error, as the trial Court originally ruled. The testimony was elicited at the beginning of the trial, did not refer to defendant and was cured by an instruction from the Court.
In summary, two errors upon which Order Granting New Trial was predicated were harmless. The third alleged error did not occur. No miscarriage of justice occurred nor were substantial rights of defendant injuriously affected. Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.600.
Although the granting of a Motion for New Trial is an exercise of the broad discretion of the trial judge which should not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion, Hanson v. State, 187 So. 2d 54 (Fla.App.1966), and State v. Trafficante, 136 So. 2d 264 (Fla.App.1962), we find the trial judge did abuse his discretion in granting appellee a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
MAGER and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Prieto, 439 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…umulative effect of these errors required that the defendant’s motion for a new trial be granted. This appeal by the state ensued. The granting of a motion for a new trial is an exercise of the broad discretion of the trial judge, State v. Woodson, 330 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), and a stronger showing is required to upset an order granting a new trial than is required to overturn an order denying a new trial. Castlewood International Corp. v. LaFleur, 322 So. 2d 520 (Fla.1975). This court’s standard of…
-
State v. Celestino Delafuente, 487 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…983). Further, in light of the overwhelming evidence against appellee, including the tape recordings of appellee’s participation in the crime, any alleged error was harmless. See Lane v. State, 352 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); State v. Woodson, 330 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). DOWNEY and DELL, JJ„ concur.…
-
Perkins v. State, 349 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…that appellant was a known criminal, Loftin v. State, 273 So. 2d 70 (Fla.1973), we think in this instance it was harmless error because the jury had previously been told by defense counsel that appellant was a marijuana dealer. See State v. Woodson, 330 So. 2d 152 (Fla.4th DCA 1976). We view the first and third comments more critically. These remarks were not only hearsay, and inadmissible for that reason, but more significantly they constituted an attack on appellant’s character by establishing in the minds…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Adler v. Copa Corp., 212 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Loftin v. State, 273 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1973)
- State v. Trafficante, 136 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Hanson v. State, 187 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Anderson v. State, 230 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Peterson v. State, 293 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)