Hodge v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hodge v. State

355 So. 2d 198, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15315

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 21, 1978

DocketNo. 77-300

StatusPublished

This text of 355 So. 2d 198 (Hodge 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

Hodge v. State, 355 So. 2d 198, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15315 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged with first degree murder. He was tried and found guilty by a jury of murder in the second degree. By this appeal appellant seeks reversal of his conviction and sentence.

Appellant’s point on appeal presents the question of whether it was reversible error for the trial court to deny appellant’s motion for mistrial based on alleged prejudicial remarks made by the prosecuting attorney both during his opening statement to the jury and in his closing argument.

The grounds relied upon for reversal have been considered in the light of the record on appeal, briefs and arguments of counsel. We conclude that no reversible error has been made to appear.

The record discloses that the case was fairly tried: that the remarks complained of were not, under the circumstances, such as would constitute prejudicial error; that the verdict is supported by the evidence; and that the rulings of the trial court challenged by appellant did not, on the record and under the law, constitute harmful error. State v. Jones, 204 So.2d 515 (Fla.1967); Morgan v. State, 303 So.2d 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Barrett v. State, 266 So.2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Reis v. State, 248 So.2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Robinson v. State, 145 So.2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged with first degree murder. He was tried and found guilty by a jury of murder in the second degree. By this appeal appellant seeks reversal of his conviction and sentence.

Appellant’s point on appeal presents the question of whether it was reversible error for the trial court to deny appellant’s motion for mistrial based on alleged prejudicial remarks made by the prosecuting attorney both during his opening statement to the jury and in his closing argument.

The grounds relied upon for reversal have been considered in the light of the record on appeal, briefs and arguments of counsel. We conclude that no reversible error has been made to appear.

The record discloses that the case was fairly tried: that the remarks complained of were not, under the circumstances, such as would constitute prejudicial error; that the verdict is supported by the evidence; and that the rulings of the trial court challenged by appellant did not, on the record and under the law, constitute harmful error. State v. Jones, 204 So.2d 515 (Fla.1967); Morgan v. State, 303 So.2d 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Barrett v. State, 266 So.2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Reis v. State, 248 So.2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Robinson v. State, 145 So.2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

355 So. 2d 198, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodge-v-state-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack