ROY J. PHELPS, 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.
Roy Phelps appealed his conviction for manslaughter, claiming reversible error based on alleged improper testimony regarding prior jail time and alleged failure to establish voluntariness of his statements to police. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding the claimed errors were either highly speculative or unsupported by the record.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the brief exchange between the prosecutor and defendant did not constitute reversible error as any indication of prior convictions was highly speculative, and that the trial judge's finding that the defendant understood what he was saying and refusal to suppress the statements constituted an implicit determination of voluntariness.
[1] A conviction will not be reversed based on speculation that the jury inferred improper information from testimony.
[2] A trial court's denial of a motion for mistrial will not be reversed if the alleged error is based on mere conjecture.
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 the notion that the above colloquy indicated to the jurors that the defendant had previously been convicted of a crime is highly speculative and reversible error cannot be predicated upon mere conjecture.”
Establishes the standard that appellate courts will not find reversible error based on speculative inferences about what jurors might have understood.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePhelps was convicted of manslaughter as a lesser included offense of second degree murder. During cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Phelps "That…
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 Speculative Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Roy Phelps, appeals his conviction for manslaughter (as a lesser included offense of second degree murder for which he was informed against).
Defendant first urges as reversible error the denial of his motion for mistrial on the ground that the prosecution had elicited testimony from him that he had been in jail in violation of the stipulation that neither the prosecutor or defense coun sel would inquire whether the defendant had ever been convicted of a crime. This contention arises out of the following colloquy between the defendant and the prosecutor: “Q You did not think he was going to live? “A I didn’t give that no thought. I just hope the cops to come, and they did. “Q When they got there you did not let them in? “A They didn’t ask that question.
I told them I didn’t think I needed to go down to the police station. “Q That is not the first time for you, it is, Mr. Phelps? “MR. LINK: Objection. “THE COURT: Sustained. “A No, sir. It is not.”
We find the notion that the above colloquy indicated to the jurors that the defendant had previously been convicted of a crime is highly speculative and reversible error cannot be predicated upon mere conjecture. See Sullivan v. State, 303 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1974); Hutchins v. State, 334 So. 2d 112 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).
Defendant also argues that the judge erred in admitting into evidence initial statements made by the defendant to the officers when they first arrived on the scene in that the judge failed to make a specific finding of voluntariness. We cannot agree. A review of the record with respect thereto refutes this contention.
At the hearing on judgment’s motion to suppress these and other statements, the judge specifically found that at the time defendant made these initial statements he understood what he was saying. There being no suggestion of coercion, we conclude that the judge determined that these statements were voluntary by virtue of his finding above and refusal to suppress them. See Wilson v. State, 304 So. 2d 119 (Fla.1974). We also considered defendant’s remaining points on appeal and find that he has failed to make reversible error appear.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anton Kevin Peterson v. State, 382 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1980)…2d 464 (Fla.lst DCA 1975); Husk v. State, 305 So. 2d 19 (Fla.lst DCA 1974); Bunch v. State, 303 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Trolinger v. State, 300 So. 2d 310 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); Hester v. State, 357 So. 2d 481 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Phelps v. State, 353 So. 2d 1221 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Von Horn v. State, 334 So. 2d 43 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Walker v. State, 319 So. 2d 642 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Walker v. State, 311 So. 2d 768 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Graham v. State, 292 So. 2d 373 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Smith v. State, 288 So. 2…
-
Jacobson v. State, 375 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…e 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 defendant’s overall involvement in criminal activity would, to a limited extent, come before the…
-
Perez-Sovias v. State, 95 So. 3d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…juror to answer, two preliminary questions in Spanish); see also Sullivan v. State, 303 So. 2d 632, 635 (Fla.1974) (“Reversible error cannot be predicated on conjecture.”); accord Ford v. Wainwright, 451 So. 2d 471, 474 (Fla.1984); Phelps v. State, 353 So. 2d 1221, 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (“[Reversible error cannot be predicated upon mere conjecture.”). That is not to say that what happened below was appropriate. It was not. Article II, section 9 of the Florida Constitution provides that “English is the off…
Authorities Cited
- Sullivan v. State, 303 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1974)
- Wilson v. State, 304 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1974)
- Hutchins v. State, 334 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)