DONALD S. CREWS, 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.
Donald Crews was convicted of robbing a 7-11 Store and appealed, challenging the trial court's denial of his mistrial motion after the prosecutor referenced an acquitted robbery of a nearby Lil' General Store. The appellate court affirmed, finding the reference amounted to speculation that could not constitute reversible error and that evidence of guilt was sufficient.
The court held that the prosecutor's reference to the acquitted robbery amounted to pure speculation or mere conjecture on which reversible error cannot be predicated, and similarly rejected the defendant's challenge to isolated references by other witnesses.
[1] A prosecutor's mistaken reference to a different crime, which is immediately corrected and admonished by the court, does not automatically constitute reversible error.
[2] Reversible error cannot be predicated upon mere speculation or conjecture regarding the jury's interpretation of a prosecutor's question.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We find this contention amounts to pure speculation or mere conjecture upon which reversible error cannot be predicated.”
Establishes the standard that reversible error cannot rest on speculation regarding what a jury inferred from the prosecutor's question.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCrews was charged with robbing a 7-11 Store on July 18, 1975, located near a Lil' General Store that was also robbed the same day. Crews was acquitted…
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 Speculation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Donald Crews seeks reversal of his conviction for robbery following a jury trial and first urges as reversible error the denial of his motion for mistrial after the prosecution allegedly introduced evidence of another crime for which he was acquitted.
Defendant in the instant case was charged with the robbery of a 7-11 Store on July 18,1975 located in the same vicinity of a Lil’ General Store which was robbed at about the same time on the same date. Defendant was charged with the robbery of the Lil’ General Store and was acquitted. During his trial for the 7-11 Store robbery, the prosecutor asked Detective Cameron the following question:
**
“Q Did you have occasion, sir, to become involved in the investigation of a robbery that occurred at the Lil’ General Store out on West Dixie Highway?
“A Yes, sir.”
**
Defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial. A sidebar conference was held at which the prosecutor explained that he meant to say 7-11 Store instead of Lil’ General Store and requested that he be allowed to reask the question, this time using 7-11 Store instead of Lil’ General Store. The motion for mistrial was denied and Detective Cameron was admonished by the trial judge not to mention anything in regard to the Lil’ General Store robbery. The prosecutor then questioned Detective Cameron:
** “Q (By Mr. Godwin) Let me ask you this question again: In the course of your official capacity, did you become involved in the investigation of a robbery in North Miami at a 7-11 Store?”
sje s(: ijs * * *
The defendant contends that the above question indicated to the jury that he was involved in the robbery of the Lil’ General Store resulting in reversible error since he had been acquitted with respect to that robbery. We find this contention amounts to pure speculation or mere conjecture upon which reversible error cannot be predicated. See Sullivan v. State, 303 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1974); Hutchins v. State, 334 So. 2d 112 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). We conclude likewise on defendant’s same contention with regards to the isolated respective references of two other witnesses as to “two robberies” and “two stores”.
We also examined defendant’s second contention of insufficiency of the evidence and have determined that it is without merit in that an eyewitness to the robbery positively identified the defendant.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stanley v. State, 357 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…lates to reference by Stanley during trial to a “test,” meaning the polygraph examination which he took. This point is governed by the invited error rule, supra, as wdll as by Hutchins v. State, 334 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), and Crews v. State, 353 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), which cases hold that reversible error cannot be predicated upon pure speculation or mere conjecture. Stanley’s contention that the word “test” inevitably would be construed by the jury to mean polygraph examination, is mere conj…
-
Jacobson v. State, 375 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ible error cannot be predicated on the mere conjecture that the defendant may have directed the commission of a crime. Sullivan v. State, 303 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1974), cert. denied 428 U.S. 911, 96 S.Ct. 3226, 49 L.Ed.2d 1220 (1976); Crews v. State, 353 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied 359 So. 2d 1212 (Fla.1978); Phelps v. State, 353 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied 362 So. 2d 1055 (Fla.1978). In a case of this kind, it was probably inevitable that certain facts tending to show the de…
-
Nunez v. State, 367 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…orked for the Organized Crime Bureau. This innocuous statement is not sufficient to support the defendant’s claim that he was prejudiced so that he could not receive a fair trial because of this knowledge on the part of the jury. Cf. Crews v. State, 353 So. 2d 210 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). The fourth point on appeal urges that the evidence was insufficient to show defendant’s control over the contraband in the truck which he was driving. This argument is insufficient upon the facts of this case under the law set fo…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sullivan v. State, 303 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1974)
- Hutchins v. State, 334 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)