ROMAN N. MANKOWSKI, APPELLANT,
v.
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a robbery conviction, finding that while some judicial comments were not ideal, the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and no harmful error occurred that would justify reversal.
No, the court held that while some comments by the trial judge were not ideal, they did not constitute harmful error. The evidence of guilt was clear and convincing, and no reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt existed.
“while we do not endorse with approval some of the comments of the trial Judge in the handling of the trial, we do not find that any harmful error justifying reversal has occurred.”
This quote establishes the court's finding that despite some improprieties, the errors were not significant enough to warrant overturning the conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoman N. Mankowski was convicted of robbery by the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County. He appealed, alleging six errors related to the admission …
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 Harmless Error cases and more on FLexlaw
THORNAL, Justice.
Appellant seeks reversal of a verdict and judgment of conviction of robbery by the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County.
The assignment of errors and brief of appellant suggests six alleged errors based on the admission of certain evidence, various comments by the trial Judge and comments of the Prosecuting Attorney in his argument to the Jury. The records and briefs have been carefully considered and while we do not endorse with approval some of the comments of the trial Judge in the handling of the trial, we do not find that any harmful error justifying reversal has occurred.
Our examination of the record establishes that the evidence of guilt of the appellant was clear and convincing. The alleged errors do not reach the legality of the trial itself, and in view of the conclusive nature of the evidence offered, there can be no reasonable doubt of appellant’s guilt. See Section 924.33, F.S., F.S.A.; Kelly v. State, 145 Fla. 491, 199 So. 764; Cornelius v. State, Fla. 1950, 49 So. 2d 332; Salters v. State, 152 Fla. 284, 10 So. 2d 809.
The judgment is therefore affirmed.
DREW, C. J., and TERRELL, HOB-SON and ROBERTS, JJ., concur. THOMAS, J., agrees to conclusion.
O’CONNELL, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Wadsworth, 210 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1968)…requirements of F.S.A. § 54.23 and § 924.33, and the decisions in Kelly v. State, supra [145 Fla. 491, 199 So. 764]; Roberts v. State, 1944, 154 Fla. 36, 16 So. 2d 435; Fletcher v. State, Fla.1953, 65 So. 2d 845; Mankowski v. State, supra [Fla.1955, 83 So. 2d 597]; Albano v. State, Fla.1956, 89 So. 2d 342; Conner v. State, Fla.1958, 106 So. 2d 416; Urga v. State, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 719. To do otherwise disregards the plain- mandate of the Harmless Error Statutes, and conflicts with the decision of [thi…
-
Beard v. State, 104 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)…nst the appellant Beard is reversed and the cause remanded for new trial. CARROLL, DONALD, J., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge, concur. . F.S. § 919.04(3), F.S.A. . Smith v. State, Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 525. . Mankowski v. State, Fla.1955, 83 So. 2d 597; Kelly v. State, 145 Fla. 491, 199 So. 764. . F.S. §§ 54.23, 924.33, F.S.A.; Linsley v. State, 88 Fla. 135, 101 So. 273. . See: Wise v. Jacksonville Gas Corporation, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 704. . “ § 918.09. In all criminal prosecutions * ⅜ ⅞ a…
-
Richardson v. State, 248 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…l the interrogation of the accused taken during his mental examination. To do so may be error. However, the testimony in this case was so overwhelming as to guilt such would be harmless. See § 924.33 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; Man-kowski v. State, Fla.1955, 83 So. 2d 597. The testimony complained of was not so harmful, in this case, that its effect could not have been removed by a request to strike it and for an instruction to the jury to disregard it. The alternative procedure of moving for mistrial was inappropria…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cornelius v. State, 49 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1950)
- Kelly v. State, 145 Fla. 491 (Fla. 1941)
- Isom Salters v. State, 152 Fla. 284 (Fla. 1943)