Hickox v. State, BH-494
| Citation | 492 So.2d 744,11 Fla. L. Weekly 1661 |
| Decision Date | 31 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. BH-494,BH-494 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1661 Burt HICKOX, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Lacy Mahon, Jr., of Mahon & Mahon, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Patricia Conners, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
During appellant's trial on a charge of sexual battery of his eleven-year-old stepdaughter, involving one specific attack, a witness for the state alluded to the fact that the child victim had stated to her that appellant had sexually abused her on prior occasions. Appellant urges that the trial court should have granted his motion for mistrial, since the admission of this "other crime" evidence violated the state's pretrial stipulation that no such evidence would be used, and the state gave no notice of intent to use such evidence as required by statute, Section 90.404(2)(b)1., Florida Statutes (1985). Appellant also argues that since the offense charged under Section 794.011(2) is a "capital felony," appellant was entitled, under Rule 3.390(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, to a jury instruction on penalties for the offense. We affirm.
We agree with appellant that the challenged testimony violated the intent and purpose of the pretrial stipulation. However, we also note the absence of any contention that the infraction was intentional. The trial court determined that it was "unexpected" on the part of the state, and we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial. Viewed in the context of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, uncontradicted by any direct testimony, we are persuaded that the inadvertent comment by the witness falls into the harmless error category. Cf. Nicholson v. State, 486 So.2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
As for appellant's contention that his effective cross-examination of the witness was hampered, because of the risk of eliciting even further comments on appellant's past conduct, we observe that an instruction to the witness by the trial court outside the jury's presence concerning the stipulated limitation of testimony would have substantially prevented further prejudicial comments. No request was made for such instruction.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McClain v. State, 86-1148
...Roman v. State, 475 So.2d 1228, 1234 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1090, 106 S.Ct. 1480, 89 L.Ed.2d 734 (1986); Hickox v. State, 492 So.2d 744, 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Nicholson v. State, 486 So.2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 500 So.2d 545 (Fla.1986). The Supreme Court of Florid......
-
Disinger v. State, 87-1674
...at 628. See also Dailey v. State, 501 So.2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Davis v. State, 495 So.2d 928 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Hickox v. State, 492 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). We do agree, however, with appellant's contentions that the trial court erred in sentencing him on the indecent assault c......
-
Hickox v. State, 89-2726
...with no possibility of parole for 25 years. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal to this court in Hickox v. State, 492 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In January of 1987, appellant filed a motion for post-conviction relief through private counsel, Lacy Mahon, raising only one ......
-
Hickox v. State
...convicted of sexual battery on a child under 12, and sentenced to life in prison. His conviction was affirmed. Hickox v. State, 492 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA1986) (Hickox I ). In January 1987, through private counsel (Mahon), Hickox filed a 3.850 motion alleging only that he had been denied t......