Mackenson Cherisme v. the State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledAugust 26, 2020
Docket3D19-1551
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed August 26, 2020.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D19-1551
Lower Tribunal No. 16-11280A
________________
Mackenson Cherisme,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L.
Fernandez, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Shannon Hemmendinger, Assistant
Public Defender, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Brian H. Zack, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Before EMAS, C.J., and HENDON and MILLER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm Cherisme’s convictions for attempted second-degree murder and
aggravated battery with a firearm. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s
denial of the defense motion for mistrial, as the comment in the instant case was not
“so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial.” Hamilton v. State, 703 So. 2d 1038,
1041 (Fla. 1997).
The victim's singular comment came during his testimony in which he
described Cherisme’s co-defendant as “the one in jail.” The comment was
unsolicited by the State; was brief, isolated and inadvertent; was not referenced
during the remainder of the trial; and was followed by the trial court’s curative
instruction. “An accused is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one.” Vedder v.
State, 313 So. 2d 49, 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (citing Lutwak v. U.S., 344 U.S. 606,
619 (1953)). See also Guzman v. State, 214 So. 3d 625, 633 (Fla. 2017) (applying
abuse of discretion standard to review of trial court’s denial of motion for mistrial
after witness testified that murder defendant was in jail at the time the DNA sample
was taken from him, observing “a reasonable juror would know that [the defendant]
had been in jail for at least some period of time prior to trial because he was charged
with first-degree murder” and further noting that the witness’ reference to jail was
brief, isolated, inadvertent, and not so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire
trial)(additional citations omitted)); Givens v. State, 748 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 3d DCA
2000); Ruger v. State, 941 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
Affirmed.
2