Moten v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moten v. State

391 So. 2d 716, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18268

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 16, 1980

DocketNo. 78-1351

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 391 So. 2d 716 (Moten 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

Moten v. State, 391 So. 2d 716, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18268 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment of conviction and sentence under review is affirmed upon a holding that the testimony and prosecutorial argument complained of on appeal were not so prejudicial as to call for a mistrial, as urged, rather than a cautionary jury instruction [specifically declined by appellant in the trial court] because: (a) the track mark testimony was at worst an oblique and extremely vague attack on appellant’s character which could have been cured, in our view, by a cautionary instruction; and (b) the alleged attempted drug sale testimony and argument was at worst a disjointed and rather confusing effort to suggest appellant’s involvement in another crime which, in our view, could have also been cured by a cautionary instruction. Rivers v. State, 226 So.2d 337 (Fla.1969); Perry v. State, 146 Fla. 187, 200 So. 525 (1941); Flowers v. State, 351 So.2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Rhome v. State, 222 So.2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment of conviction and sentence under review is affirmed upon a holding that the testimony and prosecutorial argument complained of on appeal were not so prejudicial as to call for a mistrial, as urged, rather than a cautionary jury instruction [specifically declined by appellant in the trial court] because: (a) the track mark testimony was at worst an oblique and extremely vague attack on appellant’s character which could have been cured, in our view, by a cautionary instruction; and (b) the alleged attempted drug sale testimony and argument was at worst a disjointed and rather confusing effort to suggest appellant’s involvement in another crime which, in our view, could have also been cured by a cautionary instruction. Rivers v. State, 226 So.2d 337 (Fla.1969); Perry v. State, 146 Fla. 187, 200 So. 525 (1941); Flowers v. State, 351 So.2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Rhome v. State, 222 So.2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 So. 2d 716, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moten-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack