Brooks v. State

808 So. 2d 1291, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2974, 2002 WL 384499
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Brooks v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 745 So. 2d 1113
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 13, 2002·No. No. 3D00-1976·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Andres Brooks appeals his conviction for attempted second degree murder. He contends that the trial court erred by failing to grant a continuance because he had received a black eye while in jail. He argued that if the jury were allowed to see him with a black eye, he would be unfairly prejudiced, as they would likely draw the inference that he had been in a fight and-had a propensity for violence. The trial court denied the motion. The court offered to give the jury an explanation that the defendant had received the black eye in an accident. The defendant declined the offer of the special explanation.

We conclude that the trial court’s ruling was within its discretion. See Mikenas v. State, 367 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla.1978); Mo-ten v. State, 391 So.2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

Affirmed.

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

Brooks v. State, 808 So. 2d 1291, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2974, 2002 WL 384499 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

808 So. 2d 1291 (Brooks v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mikenas v. State
367 So. 2d 606 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1978)
Moten v. State
391 So. 2d 716 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)