Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

439 So. 2d 973

Docket No. 82-802.

Marshall v. State

Herbert MARSHALL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 25, 1983.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1983-10-25

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Smith v. State, 365 So.2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (if requested, curative instruction would have corrected any prejudice to defendant caused by reference to commissary slips which could only have been signed by one in jail), pet. for review denied, 402 So.2d 613 (Fla. 1981); Williams v. State, 354 So.2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (reference by witness to fact that defendant had been in prison cured by instruction); Flowers v. State, 351 So.2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (denial of motion for mistrial proper when officer's statement that he recognized the defendant from "previous things" was subject of curative instruction). See also Williams v. State, 438 So.2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Evans v. State, 422 So.2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Moore v. State, 418 So.2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (same result where reference is to "mug shot" of defendant).”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 492 So. 2d 1368 - Hellman v. State

Relies on 402 So. 2d 606 - State v. Hawkins · 418 So. 2d 435 - Moore v. State · Berezovsky v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-10-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently December 2005

19 state decisions

120198319902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*974 Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Beth C. Weitzner, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Penny H. Brill, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3Before BARKDULL, NESBITT, and JORGENSON, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The sole point on appeal is whether the defendant is entitled to a new trial where a lab technician testified that the defendant's fingerprints matched those taken from a master file of persons previously booked at the Dade County jail, thereby implying that the defendant had a prior arrest. Viewing the record in light of this contention, we find that the curative instruction given by the court was sufficient to dissipate any prejudicial effects of the technician's comment. Smith v. State,365 So.2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (if requested, curative instruction would have corrected any prejudice to defendant caused by reference to commissary slips which could only have been signed by one in jail), pet. for review denied,402 So.2d 613 (Fla. 1981); Williams v. State,354 So.2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (reference by witness to fact that defendant had been in prison cured by instruction); Flowers v. State,351 So.2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (denial of motion for mistrial proper when officer's statement that he recognized the defendant from "previous things" was subject of curative instruction). See also Williams v. State,438 So.2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Evans v. State,422 So.2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Moore v. State,418 So.2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (same result where reference is to "mug shot" of defendant).

¶6Accordingly, we affirm.

/439/so2d/973 · .json · Public domain