Roman v. State, 82-290

Decision Date27 September 1983
Docket NumberNo. 82-290,82-290
Citation438 So.2d 487
PartiesSamuel ROMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Howard K. Blumberg, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Marti A. Rothenberg and Richard Doran, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Before HUBBART and DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant Samuel Roman appeals his conviction and sentence for attempted armed robbery. The central contention urged on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's timely motion for a mistrial after the arresting officer gave testimony at trial indicating that the defendant was involved in a robbery for which he was not charged. It would serve no purpose to detail the precise testimony nor elaborate further on the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that we are persuaded that a Williams violation occurred below, that the defendant was substantially prejudiced thereby, and that a reversal is necessarily mandated herein. See e.g., Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959), and cases collected therein; Mann v. State, 22 Fla. 600 (1886); Selph v. State, 22 Fla. 537 (1886); Green v. State, 190 So.2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Moreover, we specifically reject the state's central contention in reply that the error was harmless. Harris v. State, 427 So.2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Vazquez v. State, 405 So.2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), approved in part, quashed in part, 419 So.2d 1088 (Fla.1982).

The judgment of conviction and sentence is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Wright v. State, s. 82-1945
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 28 Febrero 1984
    ...cited; Hopkins v. State, supra. Furthermore, considering (a) the extremely prejudicial nature of this type of evidence, Roman v. State, 438 So.2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Cummings v. State, supra; Vazquez v. State, 405 So.2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), approved in part, quashed in part, 419 So.2......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT