Menna v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Menna v. State

792 So. 2d 577, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10306, 2001 WL 830811

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 25, 2001

DocketNo. 3D99-2631

StatusPublished

This text of 792 So. 2d 577 (Menna 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

Menna v. State, 792 So. 2d 577, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10306, 2001 WL 830811 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Power v. State, 605 So.2d 856, 861 (Fla.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1037, 113 S.Ct. 1863, 123 L.Ed.2d 483 (1993) (holding that ruling on a motion for mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986); see also Lopez v. State, 716 So.2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (holding that tape-recorded 911 call admissible as excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule); Pringle v. State, 792 So.2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding that unless the trial judge clearly erred in denying a peremptory challenge, trial will not be overturned on that ground); Chidinas v. State, 693 So.2d 953 (Fla.1997) (holding that court properly sustained hearsay objection when the testimony offered by the [578]*578defendant’s witness did not come within any hearsay exception); Brovm v. State, 550 So.2d 527, 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (affirming ruling permitting state to use demonstrative aids in closing argument absent “inaccuracy of the replication sufficient to demonstrate error”).

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Power v. State, 605 So.2d 856, 861 (Fla.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1037, 113 S.Ct. 1863, 123 L.Ed.2d 483 (1993) (holding that ruling on a motion for mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986); see also Lopez v. State, 716 So.2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (holding that tape-recorded 911 call admissible as excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule); Pringle v. State, 792 So.2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding that unless the trial judge clearly erred in denying a peremptory challenge, trial will not be overturned on that ground); Chidinas v. State, 693 So.2d 953 (Fla.1997) (holding that court properly sustained hearsay objection when the testimony offered by the [578]*578defendant’s witness did not come within any hearsay exception); Brovm v. State, 550 So.2d 527, 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (affirming ruling permitting state to use demonstrative aids in closing argument absent “inaccuracy of the replication sufficient to demonstrate error”).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

792 So. 2d 577, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10306, 2001 WL 830811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/menna-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack