Hippensteel v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hippensteel v. State

525 So. 2d 1027, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1318, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2230, 1988 WL 54426

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 2, 1988

DocketNo. 87-907

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 525 So. 2d 1027 (Hippensteel 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

Hippensteel v. State, 525 So. 2d 1027, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1318, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2230, 1988 WL 54426 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from convictions for aggravated battery, retaliating against a witness and criminal mischief. Appellant’s counsel appropriately filed an Anders brief. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We write only to suggest that error was committed for the trial court’s failure to declare a mistrial after the prosecutor called the defendant, and his codefendant, “punks” and then sarcastically responded to the court’s ruling in sustaining the objection by referring to the defendants as “These two fine, upstanding young ...” This type of comment and behavior should never be permitted in a courtroom lest all observers believe it is acceptable. It is not, as was not the behavior which led the judge to threaten contempt proceedings against the prosecutor. As we said, this was error but because of the overwhelming evidence of guilt and because we do not find the comments could have led to an improper verdict we deem the error harmless. We suggest the trial judge might do [1028]*1028well to review the matter with the prosecutor, at least.

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.

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

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from convictions for aggravated battery, retaliating against a witness and criminal mischief. Appellant’s counsel appropriately filed an Anders brief. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We write only to suggest that error was committed for the trial court’s failure to declare a mistrial after the prosecutor called the defendant, and his codefendant, “punks” and then sarcastically responded to the court’s ruling in sustaining the objection by referring to the defendants as “These two fine, upstanding young ...” This type of comment and behavior should never be permitted in a courtroom lest all observers believe it is acceptable. It is not, as was not the behavior which led the judge to threaten contempt proceedings against the prosecutor. As we said, this was error but because of the overwhelming evidence of guilt and because we do not find the comments could have led to an improper verdict we deem the error harmless. We suggest the trial judge might do [1028]*1028well to review the matter with the prosecutor, at least.

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

525 So. 2d 1027, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1318, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2230, 1988 WL 54426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hippensteel-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack