Robinson v. State
| Decision Date | 10 March 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 63-14,63-14 |
| Citation | 161 So.2d 578 |
| Parties | Carlton ROBINSON, a/k/a Robbie Robinson, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Henry R. Carr and William B. Seidel, Miami, for appellant.
James W. Kynes, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Leonard R. Mellon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and TILLMAN PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.
The appellant was convicted of unlawful possession and dispensing of marijuana.
During the course of the defendant's trial, by jury, appellant's counsel was cross-examining a state witness when the court made the following remark:
Counsel for appellant moved for a mistrial, for the reason that this remark constituted a comment by the court upon the veracity of the witness. Appellant contends the denial of this motion was reversible error; we agree.
The comment, by the court, in regard to the witness went into that realm where the jury could have been persuaded, by virtue of the judge's comment, to rely on this witness's veracity. The comment amounted to the judge vouching for the witness's character. In Hamilton v. State, Fla.App.1959, 109 So.2d 422, 424-425, Judge Horton pointed out the dangers involved in such a situation:
We do not say that the trial judge's comment in this case amounted to any preference, or even an indication of such, but it could have been so interpreted, and on that possibility we must reverse for a new trial. Where there is simply a doubt, as here, that an accused has been prejudiced by a remark of the court, we must grant him a new trial.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Archambault
... ... the witnesses and the weight and effect to be given to all of ... the testimony. While the main purpose of a judge is to [448 ... Pa. 107] state and explain the law and briefly review the ... evidence, It is always the privilege and sometimes the duty ... of a trial judge to express his own ... such comments should not include praise or criticism of their ... verdict.' ... [ 17 ] See, e.g., Robinson v. State, 161 So.2d ... 578 (Fla.D.C.App.1964); People v. Chatman, 67 Ill.App.2d 481, ... 214 N.E.2d 545 (1966); State v. Cox, 352 S.W.2d 665 ... ...
-
Watson v. State
...principles of law announced in Williams v. State (Fla.) 143 So.2d 484; State ex rel. Arnold v. Revels, 113 So.2d 218 (Fla.); Robinson v. State, 161 So.2d 578 (Fla.); Raulerson v. State, 102 So.2d 281 (Fla.); Carr v. State, 136 So.2d 28 (Fla.App.); Lester v. State, 37 Fla. 382, 20 So. 232; a......
-
State v. Rodriquez
...an examination of the precedents cited by defendants leads us to the conclusion that they are distinguishable. In Robinson v. State (Fla.App.), 161 So.2d 578 (1964); State v. Deslovers, 40 R.I. 89, 100 A. 64 (1917); and Hamilton v. State (Fla.App.), 109 So.2d 422 (1959), there was no cautio......
-
State v. Thayer
...of the accused, as to what has or has not been proved, or a preference by the court as to the outcome of the case. Robinson v. State, 161 So.2d 578 (Fla.Ct.App.1964); Hamilton v. State, 109 So.2d 422 (Fla.Ct.App.1959); Golden v. State, 45 Ga.App. 501, 165 S.E. 299 (Ct.App.1932). See also St......