MARKEES A. JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court affirmed defendant's first-degree murder conviction, rejecting claims that trial errors regarding jury instructions and prosecutor's comments warranted a new trial.
Trial court did not err in refusing a special premeditation instruction or in denying mistrial based on prosecutor's final argument comment, and any error would have been harmless.
Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder after five eyewitnesses testified they saw him shoot the victim multiple times as the vict…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse First Degree Premeditated Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Markees A Jones (defendant) was tried and convicted of committing first-degree premeditated murder.1 At trial, the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. Five eye witnesses testified that they saw the defendant shoot the victim as he tried to run from the defendant. After the victim fell, the defendant shot him at least two more times.
The defendant appeals his judgment and sentence claiming that certain trial errors entitle him to receive a new trial. The defendant’s claims of error are without merit. The trial court did not err in failing to give the special jury instruction requested by the defendant defining premeditation. See Spencer v. State, 645 So. 2d 377 (Fla.1994). The trial court also did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for mistrial based upon the prosecutor’s comment, made during final argument, that: “The defendant has had time to think about his testimony, and you heard.” This comment was not a reference to the defendant’s right to remain silent. Importantly, even if the comment were to be so construed, the resulting error would have been harmless. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP, PETERSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . § 782.04, Fla. Stat. (1997).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Dusty Ray Spencer v. State, 645 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1994)