Gysin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gysin v. State

151 So. 2d 349, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3530

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 26, 1963

DocketNos. 62-395, 62-396

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 151 So. 2d 349 (Gysin 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

Gysin v. State, 151 So. 2d 349, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3530 (Fla. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a criminal appeal in which the sole point presented is that the court erred in failing to grant a mistrial on its own motion or, in the alternative, to instruct the jury to disregard certain remarks of the assistant state attorney. We have determined that the remarks to which our attention has been called were not sufficient to require the granting of a mistrial in this case. See Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625. We do not, therefore, consider the effect of appellants’ failure to move for a mistrial.

The second portion of appellants’ argument is directed to the trial judge’s failure to instruct the jury to disregard the alleged prejudicial remarks. This contention of error is not supported by the record because although some of the alleged prejudicial remarks were objected to, others were not. In addition, appellants did not request the court to instruct the jury to disregard what they considered to be prejudicial statements. See Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625. We have also considered this record under the discretion set forth in Rule 6.16, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., and we hold that no reversible error appears.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a criminal appeal in which the sole point presented is that the court erred in failing to grant a mistrial on its own motion or, in the alternative, to instruct the jury to disregard certain remarks of the assistant state attorney. We have determined that the remarks to which our attention has been called were not sufficient to require the granting of a mistrial in this case. See Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625. We do not, therefore, consider the effect of appellants’ failure to move for a mistrial.

The second portion of appellants’ argument is directed to the trial judge’s failure to instruct the jury to disregard the alleged prejudicial remarks. This contention of error is not supported by the record because although some of the alleged prejudicial remarks were objected to, others were not. In addition, appellants did not request the court to instruct the jury to disregard what they considered to be prejudicial statements. See Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625. We have also considered this record under the discretion set forth in Rule 6.16, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., and we hold that no reversible error appears.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 So. 2d 349, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gysin-v-state-fladistctapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack