Williams v. State

444 So. 2d 597, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11649
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Williams v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 395 So. 2d 1236
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 8, 1984·No. No. 83-806·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Although we are of the view that the trial court should not have stated to a prosecution witness upon completion of her testimony, “Thank you, Miss Smith. Good luck to you,” we do not believe such remark mandated a mistrial. Cf. Blake v. State, 336 So.2d 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) and People v. Roby, 38 Mich.App. 387, 196 N.W.2d 346 (1972). In our view any error could have been cured by an instruction to the jury, but no such instruction was requested. We also find no error in the other issues raised.

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and BERANEK, J., concur. WALDEN, J., dissenting without opinion.

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

Williams v. State, 444 So. 2d 597, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11649 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

444 So. 2d 597 (Williams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Roby
196 N.W.2d 346 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1972)
Blake v. State
336 So. 2d 454 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)