Marshall v. State, 439 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Marshall v. State, 439 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Ehiabor v. Ehiabor (fladistctapp, 2026-06-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ehiabor v. Ehiabor
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
Manning v. Tunnell, 943 So. 2d 1018 , 1020 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Atwood v. Hendrix, 439 So. 2d 973, 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Williamson v. Williamson, 335 So. 2d 346, 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnston v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Walker v. State, 707 So.2d 300, 313 (Fla.1997) (holding the admission of testimony which referenced other charges was harmless error in light of trial court’s curative instruction); Webber v. State, 718 So.2d 258, 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (holding that improper testimony of evidence of collateral crimes constituted harmless error where the trial court issued curative instruction); Marshall v. State, 439 So.2d 973, 974 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1983) (holding that curative instruction corrected any prejudice created by testimony that the defendant’s fingerprints matched the fingerprints taken from the f…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) D'ANNA v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1984 · confidence medium
Among the factors to be considered are the extent of other clear, unequivocal evidence of identification of the defendant rendered in-court, Loftin, supra at 71 , whether the photographs were "cropped" so as to hide the identity of the photographing agency, Houston v. State, supra at 469, whether a curative instruction was given, Marshall v. State, 439 So.2d 973, 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), and the extent to which the photographs or reference to them at trial refer to a defendant's past criminal record.
discussed Cited "see" Villanueva v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Marshall v. State, 439 So.2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)(holding that curative instruction dissipated any prejudice stemming from lab technician's testimony that defendant's fingerprints matched a set of fingerprints taken from a master file of persons booked in county jail); Williams v. State, 354 So.2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)(holding that reference by witness that defendant had previously been in prison was cured by trial court's instruction).
cited Cited "see" Brown v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Marshall v. State, 439 So.2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Williams v. State, 354 So.2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
cited Cited "see" Hunnicutt v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Marshall v. State, 439 So.2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Williams v. State, 354 So.2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Flowers v. State, 351 So.2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
cited Cited "see" Barber v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Marshall v. State, 439 So.2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hellman v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1986 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Marshall v. State, 439 So.2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (curative instruction sufficient to overcome implication of previous arrest in lab technician's testimony on matching defendant's fingerprints with those in the master file of persons previously booked).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Herbert MARSHALL, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
82-802.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct 25, 1983.
439 So. 2d 973
Barkdull, Nesbitt, and Jorgenson.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

[*974] Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Beth C. Weitzner, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Penny H. Brill, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, NESBITT, and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The sole point on appeal is whether the defendant is entitled to a new trial where a lab technician testified that the defendant's fingerprints matched those taken from a master file of persons previously booked at the Dade County jail, thereby implying that the defendant had a prior arrest. Viewing the record in light of this contention, we find that the curative instruction given by the court was sufficient to dissipate any prejudicial effects of the technician's comment. Smith v. State, 365 So.2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (if requested, curative instruction would have corrected any prejudice to defendant caused by reference to commissary slips which could only have been signed by one in jail), pet. for review denied, 402 So.2d 613 (Fla. 1981); Williams v. State, 354 So.2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (reference by witness to fact that defendant had been in prison cured by instruction); Flowers v. State, 351 So.2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (denial of motion for mistrial proper when officer's statement that he recognized the defendant from "previous things" was subject of curative instruction). See also Williams v. State, 438 So.2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Evans v. State, 422 So.2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Moore v. State, 418 So.2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (same result where reference is to "mug shot" of defendant).

Accordingly, we affirm.