Andrews v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Andrews v. State

201 So. 2d 473, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4612

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 25, 1967

DocketNo. 66-837

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 201 So. 2d 473 (Andrews v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andrews v. State, 201 So. 2d 473, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4612 (Fla. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from a judgment and sentence pursuant to a jury verdict finding him guilty of knowingly having possession of an explosive, in violation of § 552.101 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

Appellant first urges reversal on the ground that certain remarks made by the prosecuting attorney in his opening statement to the jury were so prejudicial as to call for a mistrial. We can not agree. Appellant’s motion for mistrial was denied by the trial judge and followed up by an instruction to the jury to disregard the statements made by the prosecuting attorney which related to hearsay. We do not consider the statements so prejudicial as to constitute reversible error. However, if they were improper we think that the court’s instruction to the jury to disregard the statements complained of removed any prejudicial effect they might have had on the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Appellant’s other points have also been considered and found to be without merit. See Johnson v. State, Fla.1961, 130 So.2d 599; Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 654; see also Burns v. State, 150 Fla. 869, 9 So.2d 106; Lewis v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 744.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from a judgment and sentence pursuant to a jury verdict finding him guilty of knowingly having possession of an explosive, in violation of § 552.101 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

Appellant first urges reversal on the ground that certain remarks made by the prosecuting attorney in his opening statement to the jury were so prejudicial as to call for a mistrial. We can not agree. Appellant’s motion for mistrial was denied by the trial judge and followed up by an instruction to the jury to disregard the statements made by the prosecuting attorney which related to hearsay. We do not consider the statements so prejudicial as to constitute reversible error. However, if they were improper we think that the court’s instruction to the jury to disregard the statements complained of removed any prejudicial effect they might have had on the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Appellant’s other points have also been considered and found to be without merit. See Johnson v. State, Fla.1961, 130 So.2d 599; Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 654; see also Burns v. State, 150 Fla. 869, 9 So.2d 106; Lewis v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 744.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 So. 2d 473, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrews-v-state-fladistctapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack