ROBERT G. WILLIAMS, 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.
Robert G. Williams appeals his conviction for first-degree murder and life sentence, challenging the admission of evidence of a prior robbery and the trial court's denial of a mistrial motion based on an inadvertent reference to his prior imprisonment. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding the robbery evidence admissible as showing motive and that any error regarding the prison reference was harmless.
The trial court did not commit reversible error. The robbery evidence was admissible because sufficient evidence supported that the motive for the murder was Williams's desire to protect himself from anticipated revenge related to the robbery. The inadvertent prison reference, combined with a full curative instruction, was insufficient to warrant reversal or mistrial.
[1] A witness's inadvertent reference to a defendant's prior incarceration does not necessitate a mistrial when the court provides a full, curative instruction.
[2] Evidence of a prior robbery is admissible to establish motive for a murder if it tends to show the defendant committed the murder to avoid retaliation from the victim and…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the State did not come forward with all of the evidence that it promised the court, nonetheless there was sufficient evidence in the record from which a jury could determine that the motive for the murder was an attempt by Williams to protect himself from the revenge which he had reason to anticipate”
Establishes that the robbery evidence was properly admitted to show motive despite the State's incomplete presentation of promised proof.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert G. Williams was convicted by jury of murdering Ernest Hunter. The State introduced evidence that Williams had previously robbed Roosevelt Hunte…
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 Motive For Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Robert G. Williams, appeals an adjudication of guilty of murder in the first degree and a sentence of life imprisonment. Williams was found guilty by a jury of having murdered one Ernest Hunter. On this appeal, two points are presented. The first urges that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing testimony of the alleged fact that Williams had previously robbed one Roosevelt Hunter, the brother of the deceased victim. The second point urges that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial after reference was made by a witness to the defendant’s having been in prison.
With regard to the second point, we have examined the record in the light of this contention and find that there was a full, curative instruction given by the court and that the inadvertent statement by the witness was not sufficient to require reversal for the failure to declare a mistrial. See the rule of law in Perry v. State, 146 Fla. 187, 200 So. 525 (1941); Kelly v. State, 202 So. 2d 901 (Fla.2d DCA 1967); and Garcia v. State, 142 So. 2d 318 (Fla.2d DCA 1962).
Turning to the more serious question presented by the first point, it is clear from the record that the State secured the agreement of the trial court to the admissibility of the objectionable evidence by a statement that it would present witnesses who would show that the robbery was relevant to the question of motive for the murder. The State urged in the trial court that its witnesses would show (1) that the defendant committed a robbery of the goods of Roosevelt Hunter, (2) that Roosevelt Hunter and his brother, Ernest Hunter, were known to be “looking for” Robert G. Wil liams concerning the robbery, and (3) that in order to protect himself, Robert G. Williams then killed Ernest Hunter. We have carefully reviewed the record in the light of this contention and although we find that the State did not come forward with all of the evidence that it promised the court, nonetheless there was sufficient evidence in the record from which a jury could determine that the motive for the murder was an attempt by Williams to protect himself from the revenge which he had reason to anticipate from the victim, Ernest Hunter, and his brother, Roosevelt Hunter. We therefore, hold that the admission of the evidence was not error. See State v. State-wright, 300 So. 2d 674 (Fla.1974); and Licht v. State, 148 So. 2d 295 (Fla.3d DCA 1963). See also Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959).
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Johnston v. State, 497 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)…addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and should only be granted in the case of absolute necessity. Salvatore v. State, 366 So. 2d 745 (Fla.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885, 100 S.Ct. 177, 62 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979). In Williams v. State, 354 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), the court held that a witness’ reference to the defendant having previously been imprisoned was not sufficient to require a mistrial in light of the curative instruction given by the trial court. In Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d…
-
Marshall v. State, 439 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…978) (if requested, curative instruction would have corrected any prejudice to defendant caused by reference to commissary slips which could only have been signed by one in jail), pet. for review denied, 402 So. 2d 613 (Fla.1981); Williams v. State, 354 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (reference by witness to fact that defendant had been in prison cured by instruction); Flowers v. State, 351 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (denial of motion for mistrial proper when officer’s statement that he recognized the defen…
-
Robinson v. State, 561 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…struction which we conclude was sufficient. Because an impermissible statement about a defendant’s prior incarceration is subject to being corrected by a curative instruction, see Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 639, 642 (Fla.1982); Williams v. State, 354 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), a fortiori a reference to the defendant’s presence in a “high [*1265] crime” area is subject to a correction through a curative instruction. See Huffman v. State, 500 So. 2d 349, 350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Even if that were not so,…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Perry v. State, 146 Fla. 187 (Fla. 1941)
- Coy Kelly v. State, 202 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- State v. Statewright, 300 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1974)
- Garcia v. State, 142 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Licht v. State, 148 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)