MAUDE ELLISON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction, holding that a prosecutor's statement to the jury about the time and money spent on the defendant's trial was not prejudicial error, especially given the trial court's repeated instructions to the jury to base their decision solely on evidence and law.
No, the court held that the statement was not prejudicial error, if error at all, and did not warrant reversal.
“You gentlemen have given a lot of your time, and I have given a lot of my time, there has been a lot of money spent in order to secure the defendant a fair trial in this case.”
The statement made by the state attorney during closing arguments that formed the basis of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a trial, the state attorney argued to the jury that significant time and money had been spent to ensure the defendant received a fair trial. Th…
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 Prejudicial Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Brown, C. J.
— The only assignment of error which is insisted upon in argument is based upon the trial court permitting a certain statement to be made by the state attorney in his argument before the jury on the trial of this ease in the court below. The statement referred to is as follows: “You gentlemen have given a lot of your time, and I have given a lot of my time, there has been a lot of money spent in order to secure the defendant a fair trial in this case.”
It is not shown by the bill of exceptions, outside of the motion for a new trial, that there was any exception to the alleged remarks; nor that there was an adverse ruling or refusal to check the state attorney in his argument or to instruct the jury to disregard the same. While such statements as the one above made are not to be commended, it is doubtful if' in this instance the jury were told anything that they did hot already know. In view of the repeated instructions of the trial court in its general charge to the jury to base their finding solely upon the evidence submitted and the law in the case as given by the court, and in view also of the evidence in the case, we are of the opinion that no prejudicial error, if error at all, appears.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed. Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur in the conclusion.
Buford, J., disqualified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Huggins v. State, 129 Fla. 329 (Fla. 1937)…Fla. 318, 113 Sou. 689. In the absence of such showing in the record, we cannot, assume that the State’s Attorney so grossly violated the settled rules of practice i-n criminal cases. Gaines v. State, 97 Fla. 908, 122 Sou. 525; Ellison v. State, 91 Fla. 502, 107 Sou. 640. The record discloses no reversible error. So, the judgment should be, and is affirmed. So ordered. Affirmed. Ellis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman-, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgm…