MARIN v. STATE (2024)

Affirmed. Orosz v. State, 389 So. 2d 1199, 1200 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (noting the trial court's broad discretion with regard to the course of the trial, the conduct of the jurors, and the removal of a sleeping juror and replacement with a duly-authorized alternate); Baity v. State, 277 So. 3d 752, 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (setting forth elements of an excited utterance); State v. Jano, 524 So. 2d 660, 662 (Fla. 1988) (“If the statement occurs while the exciting event is still in progress, courts have little difficulty finding that the excitement prompted the statement.” (quotation omitted)); Gosciminski v. State, 132 So. 3d 678, 695–96 (Fla. 2013) (“The granting of a motion for mistrial is not based on whether the error is ‘prejudicial.’ [R]ather ․ ‘the comments must either deprive the defendant of a fair and impartial trial, materially contribute to the conviction, be so harmful or fundamentally tainted as to require a new trial, or be so inflammatory that they might have influenced the jury to reach a more severe verdict than that it would have otherwise.’ ” (quoting in part Salazar v. State, 991 So. 2d 364, 372 (Fla. 2008))); Banks v. State, 219 So. 3d 19, 32 (Fla. 2017) (“Therefore, because there was evidence in the record supporting that Banks acted in concert with someone else, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving the principal theory instruction.”); Connolly v. State, 172 So. 3d 893, 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (“It now no longer matters whether the defendant hired (procured) a hit man, turned to his mob friends to murder Callahan, served as a lookout, provided the gun, or pulled the trigger himself, he is a principal in the first degree.”); State v. Delva, 575 So. 2d 643, 645 (Fla. 1991) (“Failing to instruct on an element of the crime over which the record reflects there was no dispute is not fundamental error ․”).

PER CURIAM.