Givens v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Givens v. State

748 So. 2d 381, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 334, 2000 WL 35896

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 19, 2000·No. No. 3D99-1910·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. The victim’s inadvertent comment on the defendant’s prior robbery conviction was not solicited by the State and does not warrant a mistrial. See Hamilton v. State, 703 So.2d 1038, 1041 (Fla.1997)(upholding denial of mistrial where improper comment was unanticipated and brief and the trial court tendered a curative instruction); Larzelere v. State, 676 So.2d 394, 400-01 (Fla.l996)(in-advertent comment on defendant’s son’s drug use “was insufficient to warrant a mistrial given its limited nature and the trial court’s curative instructions”).

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. The victim’s inadvertent comment on the defendant’s prior robbery conviction was not solicited by the State and does not warrant a mistrial. See Hamilton v. State, 703 So.2d 1038, 1041 (Fla.1997)(upholding denial of mistrial where improper comment was unanticipated and brief and the trial court tendered a curative instruction); Larzelere v. State, 676 So.2d 394, 400-01 (Fla.l996)(in-advertent comment on defendant’s son’s drug use “was insufficient to warrant a mistrial given its limited nature and the trial court’s curative instructions”).

Givens v. State, 748 So. 2d 381, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 334, 2000 WL 35896 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

748 So. 2d 381 (Givens v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related