Ruiz v. State, 79-2416
| Decision Date | 24 February 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-2416,79-2416 |
| Parties | Armodio RUIZ, a/k/a Roberto Puig, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Michael Zelman, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Calvin L. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HUBBART, C. J., and HENDRY and FERGUSON, JJ.
Armodio Ruiz was charged by information with carrying a concealed firearm and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of Sections 790.01 and 790.23, Florida Statutes (1977). Ruiz appeals a jury conviction on both counts claiming lack of fair trial.
The controlling question for review is whether a curative instruction to the jury assured Ruiz of a fair trial by sufficiently dispelling the prejudicial effect of certain remarks made by the prosecutor in his opening statement. We find that it did not.
Ruiz was arrested for not having a valid driver's license after the truck which he had been driving struck a parked vehicle. Ruiz's brother was a passenger in the truck. The police officer found a loaded .357 magnum under the driver's seat and a pistol under the passenger's seat.
In the opening argument to the jury the prosecutor stated:
Ruiz objected to the statement of arrest for auto theft and moved for mistrial pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.600(b). The court denied the motion but instructed the jury to disregard the statement:
"THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, this defendant is only on trial for the crimes charged in the Information.
As the attorneys stated and as the Court earlier stated, what the attorneys are saying now in their opening statements are not evidence and it is not to be considered by you in arriving at a verdict.
Any reference to the ownership of the automobile in question is really not a matter for your consideration and it is not relevant to this case.
Can each and every one of you set aside that matter, put it out of your mind, in accordance with my instructions?
Will you all be able to do that? I see that each of you are shaking your heads in the affirmative."
Ruiz moved for mistrial subsequent to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tacoronte v. State
...influenced by improper arguments." Deas v. State, 119 Fla. 839, 161 So. 729, 731 (1935) (emphasis supplied). See also Ruiz v. State, 395 So.2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and cases cited Finally, because the trial court left the prosecutor's remarks uncured and because the evil of these remarks......
-
Thornton v. State
...v. State, supra, 411 So.2d 235, 236-37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); McMillian v. State, 409 So.2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Ruiz v. State, supra, 395 So.2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Porter v. State, 386 So.2d 1209, 1213-14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Glassman v. State, 377 So.2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The volu......
-
Jackson v. State, 81-1729
...right to a fair trial may be upheld only by ordering a new one. Oglesby v. State, 156 Fla. 481, 23 So.2d 558 (1945); Ruiz v. State, 395 So.2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and cases cited; Carter v. State, We choose to employ this decision to discuss the broader, very serious problem it exemplifi......
-
Garvey v. State, 3D99-2179.
...was "true that you also have cut [another person] with a knife." See Harris v. State, 427 So.2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Ruiz v. State, 395 So.2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 407 So.2d 1106 (Fla.1981); Donaldson v. State, 369 So.2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Cornatezer v. State, 736 ......