Mayan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mayan v. State

325 So. 2d 442, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15251

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 20, 1976

DocketNo. 75-762

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 325 So. 2d 442 (Mayan 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

Mayan v. State, 325 So. 2d 442, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15251 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

During the trial of this case, the presiding judge made a comment during the testimony of a witness that was improper because it could be interpreted by the jury as a statement that the judge did not consider the witness’s testimony to be important or presented for any justifiable purpose. Upon objection and motion for mistrial, the court instructed the jury to disregard the comment and then polled the members, receiving from them an affirmative response that the comment would in no way influence them.

On this appeal, the defendant urges that the improper comment requires a new trial. The State, on the other hand, admits the error of the trial court but contends that it is not sufficient for reversal.

We have reviewed the record and find that the proof of the defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and that the testimony of the witness concerned was of no importance to the defense of the charge. Therefore, we affirm the judgment on authority of the rule which allows us to affirm a conviction where there is- error, but no prejudicial error. See Casso v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 182 So.2d 252, and Ennis v. State, Fla.App.1974, 300 So.2d 325.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

During the trial of this case, the presiding judge made a comment during the testimony of a witness that was improper because it could be interpreted by the jury as a statement that the judge did not consider the witness’s testimony to be important or presented for any justifiable purpose. Upon objection and motion for mistrial, the court instructed the jury to disregard the comment and then polled the members, receiving from them an affirmative response that the comment would in no way influence them.

On this appeal, the defendant urges that the improper comment requires a new trial. The State, on the other hand, admits the error of the trial court but contends that it is not sufficient for reversal.

We have reviewed the record and find that the proof of the defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and that the testimony of the witness concerned was of no importance to the defense of the charge. Therefore, we affirm the judgment on authority of the rule which allows us to affirm a conviction where there is- error, but no prejudicial error. See Casso v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 182 So.2d 252, and Ennis v. State, Fla.App.1974, 300 So.2d 325.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

325 So. 2d 442, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayan-v-state-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack