BROOKS v. STATE (2002)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District.

Andres BROOKS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D00-1976.

Decided: March 13, 2002

Before COPE, FLETCHER and SORONDO, JJ.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Shaundra L. Kellam and Robert Godfrey, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Jill K. Traina, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Andres Brooks appeals his conviction for attempted second degree murder. He contends that the trial court erred by failing to grant a continuance because he had received a black eye while in jail. He argued that if the jury were allowed to see him with a black eye, he would be unfairly prejudiced, as they would likely draw the inference that he had been in a fight and had a propensity for violence. The trial court denied the motion. The court offered to give the jury an explanation that the defendant had received the black eye in an accident. The defendant declined the offer of the special explanation.

We conclude that the trial court's ruling was within its discretion. See Mikenas v. State, 367 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla.1978); Moten v. State, 391 So.2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network