EDWARD ALONZO FRIERSON, 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.
The trial court did not err in denying a motion for mistrial based on a prosecutor's comment during closing argument.
Defendant was charged with second-degree murder, convicted of third-degree murder, and sentenced. The sole issue on appeal is the denial of a mistrial…
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 Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Edward Alonzo Frierson was charged by information with second degree murder. He was tried by jury, found guilty of third degree murder, convicted and sentenced to ten years in the state penitentiary. The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying defense counsel’s motion for a mistrial based on an allegedly inflammatory and prejudicial comment made by the prosecutor in closing argument.
As a general rule, a considerable degree of latitude is allowed prosecutors in closing argument to the jury, and logical inferences from the evidence are permissible. Wilson v. State, 305 So. 2d 50, 52 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974); Thomas v. State, 326 So. 2d 413, 415 (Fla.1975), and cases cited therein. Accord: Johnsen v. State, 332 So. 2d 69 (Fla.1976). Each case involving an alleged inflammatory or abusive remark by the prosecutor must be considered on its own merits and within the circumstances existing at the time the questionable statement was made, and if there is ample basis in the record to support the remark, a conviction will be affirmed. Darden v. State, 329 So. 2d 287, 291 (Fla.1976).
In the context of the record in this case, the remark was neither so harmful, nor fundamentally tainted as to require a new trial. A mistrial is the remedy when the corrective instruction is denied or is inadequate or when the offense is repeated. Mabery v. State, 303 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974). Accordingly, we find that the trial court acted properly in instructing the jury to disregard the remark and in not granting a mistrial.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lynn v. State, 395 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…e also contends that if the comments were error, the proper remedy for relief would have been a motion to strike and request for curative instructions. Appellant should not be heard to complain when that remedy was not sought. See Frierson v. State, 339 So. 2d 312 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), where the court held the prosecutor’s remarks in closing argument were not so harmful as to require a new trial. The court there stated that each case involving an alleged improper remark by the prosecutor must be considered on it…
-
Tacoronte v. State, 419 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…argument which allegedly imputed perjury to defendant and his counsel. Generally, a considerable degree of leeway is allowed the prosecutor in closing argument. Thomas v. State, 326 So. 2d 413 (Fla.1975); Gosney v. State, supra; Frierson v. State, 339 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). An attorney is allowed to urge the conclusions he thinks the jury should draw from the evidence, United States v. Allen, 588 F. 2d 1100 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 965, 99 S.Ct. 2415, 60 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1979), and where ther…
-
Truluck Herbert Johnson v. State, 348 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…nable statement was made, we find that the subject remark was neither so harmful nor fundamentally tainted as to require a new trial, and the trial judge properly instructed the jury to disregard the remark. See Thomas, supra, and Frierson v. State, 339 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Cf. Wingate v. State, 232 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Last, the record reflects that counsel for co-defendant upon objection asked for a curative instruction and not a new trial and, therefore, upon receiving and accepting the…
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
- Darden v. State, 329 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1976)
- Thomas v. State, 326 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1975)
- Johnsen v. State, 332 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1976)
- Diaz v. Warren, 303 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Mabery v. State, 303 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Sasser v. State, 305 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Wilson v. State, 305 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)