holding that a ruling on a motion for mistrial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion
How later courts described this case
- holding that a ruling on a motion for mistrial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion
- holding that, once a defendant takes the stand and his credibility becomes an issue at trial, the State can expose contradictions and improbabilities in his testimony
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed March 31, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-0399
Lower Tribunal No. F22-23158
________________
Nathaniel Brown,
Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Andrea R.
Wolfson, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jennifer Thornton, Assistant
Public Defender, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SCALES, C.J., and EMAS and MILLER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Guzman v. State, 214 So. 3d 625, 632 (Fla. 2017)
(holding that a ruling on a motion for mistrial is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion); Ward v. State, 306 So. 3d 1004, 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“The
trial court should not grant a motion for mistrial merely because an error is
prejudicial. Rather, the lower court should grant a mistrial only when ‘an error
is so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial[.]’” (citation omitted) (quoting
Jennings v. State, 124 So. 3d 257, 265 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013))); Granados v.
State, 199 So. 3d 384, 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (holding that, once a
defendant takes the stand and his credibility becomes an issue at trial, the
State can expose contradictions and improbabilities in his testimony).