From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ellick v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Apr 26, 2006
925 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

Opinion

No. 4D04-4786.

April 26, 2006.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Richard Oftedal, Judge; L.T. Case No. 03-8879 CFA06.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ellen Griffin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mark J. Hamel, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.


We affirm appellant's convictions and sentences for trafficking in hydrocodone and possession of cocaine. He raises three issues, none of which require reversal.

He alleges that the judge gave a confusing jury instruction which negated his affirmative defense. However, he failed to make a specific objection to the charge, and no fundamental error occurred. See Reed v. State, 837 So.2d 366, 370 (Fla. 2002). Further, he never requested a jury instruction on his affirmative defense.

Appellant also complains that a passing reference to a suppression hearing by a testifying detective was reversible error. Not only was the objection to this reference sustained, the court gave a curative instruction. The court then refused appellant's motion for mistrial. "A mistrial should be declared only when the error is so prejudicial and fundamental that it denies the accused a fair trial. Even if the comment is objectionable, the proper procedure is to request a curative instruction from the trial judge that the jury disregard the remark." Buenoano v. State, 527 So.2d 194, 198 (Fla. 1988). See also Herrera v. State, 879 So.2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that curative instruction was sufficient to cure any prejudicial effect of officer's statement). We conclude that the comment did not deny the appellant a fair trial, and the trial court properly exercised its discretion.

Finally, appellant complains that the prosecutor's closing argument was peppered with improper argument which constituted fundamental error. Having examined the challenged remarks, we conclude that in the context of the case none of them were improper, let alone fundamental error.

Affirmed.

GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ellick v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Apr 26, 2006
925 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
Case details for

Ellick v. State

Case Details

Full title:Kenneth ELLICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Apr 26, 2006

Citations

925 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)