Lawrence v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lawrence v. State

181 So. 2d 572, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5795

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 4, 1966

DocketNos. 65-191, 65-192

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 181 So. 2d 572 (Lawrence 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

Lawrence v. State, 181 So. 2d 572, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5795 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant David Lawrence-seeks reversal of two judgments of conviction of the crime of robbery. We have carefully considered the points presented on1 appeal in the light of the record and briefs, and have concluded that no reversible error is shown. Defendant’s motions for mistrial' made on voir dire and during trial were properly denied. The trial court instructed the jury to disregard the remarks of the prosecutor which were the basis for motions for mistrial. Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850, 130 So. 582; Harris v. State, 75 Fla. 527, 78 So. 526. The testimony elicited from co-defendants regarding their having pleaded guilty was not met by timely objection. English v. State, 122 Fla. 77, 164 So. 848; McCullers v. State, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 909, 913. An improper comment of the-prosecutor during the course of testimony of the witness Apfel is not considered prejudicial such as to call for reversa1- in that the effect thereof did not appear to be such that it would not have been cured by in[573]*573structions to the jury to disregard such objectionable remarks, had request for such instruction been made. See Perry v. State, 146 Fla. 187, 200 So. 525; Morris v. State, supra.

Affirmed.

TILLMAN PEARSON, J., dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant David Lawrence-seeks reversal of two judgments of conviction of the crime of robbery. We have carefully considered the points presented on1 appeal in the light of the record and briefs, and have concluded that no reversible error is shown. Defendant’s motions for mistrial' made on voir dire and during trial were properly denied. The trial court instructed the jury to disregard the remarks of the prosecutor which were the basis for motions for mistrial. Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850, 130 So. 582; Harris v. State, 75 Fla. 527, 78 So. 526. The testimony elicited from co-defendants regarding their having pleaded guilty was not met by timely objection. English v. State, 122 Fla. 77, 164 So. 848; McCullers v. State, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 909, 913. An improper comment of the-prosecutor during the course of testimony of the witness Apfel is not considered prejudicial such as to call for reversa1- in that the effect thereof did not appear to be such that it would not have been cured by in[573]*573structions to the jury to disregard such objectionable remarks, had request for such instruction been made. See Perry v. State, 146 Fla. 187, 200 So. 525; Morris v. State, supra.

Affirmed.

TILLMAN PEARSON, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 So. 2d 572, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-v-state-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack