Boylan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Boylan v. State

372 So. 2d 97, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14549

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 2, 1979

DocketNo. 77-2345

StatusPublished

This text of 372 So. 2d 97 (Boylan 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

Boylan v. State, 372 So. 2d 97, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14549 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant claims error by the trial judge in failing to instruct the jury at the close of the case as to the purpose and use of evidence of the appellant’s participation in alleged similar crimes. The trial judge, in anticipation of counsel’s reference to such testimony in opening statements, gave an instruction to the jury before the trial began in which he properly cautioned the jury concerning the use of such evidence. The instruction given was very similar to one quoted in the case of Talley v. State, 160 Fla. 593, 36 So.2d 201 (1948). The judge declined to repeat the instruction at the end of the case and we can see no prejudicial error arising from his decision, since he did, at an appropriate time before any mention was made of such evidence, caution the jury on its use. Appellant’s counsel was certainly free thereafter, if it was felt necessary, to remind the jury of the court’s instruction.

We have also reviewed the entire record in view of appellant’s assertion that the collateral matters were allowed to become a “feature” of the trial. Green v. State, 228 So.2d 397 (Fla.2d DCA 1969). Our review of all the evidence, together with the cautionary instruction given by the court, convinces us that no prejudicial error occurred in receipt of evidence of the collateral matters.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., and WETH-ERINGTON, GERALD T., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant claims error by the trial judge in failing to instruct the jury at the close of the case as to the purpose and use of evidence of the appellant’s participation in alleged similar crimes. The trial judge, in anticipation of counsel’s reference to such testimony in opening statements, gave an instruction to the jury before the trial began in which he properly cautioned the jury concerning the use of such evidence. The instruction given was very similar to one quoted in the case of Talley v. State, 160 Fla. 593, 36 So.2d 201 (1948). The judge declined to repeat the instruction at the end of the case and we can see no prejudicial error arising from his decision, since he did, at an appropriate time before any mention was made of such evidence, caution the jury on its use. Appellant’s counsel was certainly free thereafter, if it was felt necessary, to remind the jury of the court’s instruction.

We have also reviewed the entire record in view of appellant’s assertion that the collateral matters were allowed to become a “feature” of the trial. Green v. State, 228 So.2d 397 (Fla.2d DCA 1969). Our review of all the evidence, together with the cautionary instruction given by the court, convinces us that no prejudicial error occurred in receipt of evidence of the collateral matters.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., and WETH-ERINGTON, GERALD T., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

372 So. 2d 97, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boylan-v-state-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack