Buckles v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Buckles v. State

567 So. 2d 40, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7238, 1990 WL 138410

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 25, 1990

DocketNo. 89-1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 567 So. 2d 40 (Buckles 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

Buckles v. State, 567 So. 2d 40, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7238, 1990 WL 138410 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ricky Buckles, defendant below, appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine. In substance defendant contends that the trial court should have granted his motion for mistrial because of a police officer’s reference in trial testimony to a handgun discarded by defendant, even though the court’s order in limine prohibited any reference to the firearm. The trial court found that the officer's statement was invited by defense counsel and we conclude that there was a record basis for that finding. Even if it is assumed that the statement was not invited, the court sustained the defendant’s objection to the testimony and gave a curative instruction. In denying the motion for mistrial, the court acted within the bounds of permissible discretion. See Wilson v. State, 436 So.2d 908, 911 (Fla.1983); Flowers v. State, 351 So.2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Ricky Buckles, defendant below, appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine. In substance defendant contends that the trial court should have granted his motion for mistrial because of a police officer’s reference in trial testimony to a handgun discarded by defendant, even though the court’s order in limine prohibited any reference to the firearm. The trial court found that the officer's statement was invited by defense counsel and we conclude that there was a record basis for that finding. Even if it is assumed that the statement was not invited, the court sustained the defendant’s objection to the testimony and gave a curative instruction. In denying the motion for mistrial, the court acted within the bounds of permissible discretion. See Wilson v. State, 436 So.2d 908, 911 (Fla.1983); Flowers v. State, 351 So.2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

567 So. 2d 40, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7238, 1990 WL 138410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buckles-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack