The Florida District Court of Appeal has upheld the convictions of Mackenson Cherisme for attempted second-degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm. This decision impacts Cherisme, who was found guilty in a lower court, and it highlights the standards for mistrial motions in criminal cases.

The ruling, filed on August 26, 2020, comes from the Third District Court of Appeal, under docket number 3D19-1551. The court's decision is significant as it confirms the trial court's handling of a specific incident during the trial, which the defense argued warranted a mistrial.

Background

Mackenson Cherisme was involved in a criminal case concerning serious charges of attempted murder and aggravated battery. The case was heard in the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, where Judge Jose L. Fernandez presided. The prosecution argued that Cherisme had committed these crimes with a firearm, leading to his arrest and subsequent trial.

The dispute arose during the trial when a witness, the victim, made an unsolicited comment referring to Cherisme's co-defendant as “the one in jail.” This remark led the defense to file a motion for a mistrial, claiming it prejudiced the jury against Cherisme. The trial court denied this motion, prompting Cherisme to appeal the decision.

The Ruling

The District Court of Appeal ruled to affirm Cherisme's convictions, stating that there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of the mistrial motion. The court noted that the victim's comment was brief, isolated, and inadvertent. They emphasized that it did not significantly impact the fairness of the trial.

The court stated, “An accused is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one.”

The judges on the panel included Chief Judge EMAS and Judges HENDON and MILLER. They referenced previous cases to support their decision, indicating that the brief mention of jail did not vitiate the entire trial.

Impact

This ruling reinforces the legal standard for what constitutes a prejudicial comment during a trial. It clarifies that not all references to a defendant's past or legal troubles are grounds for a mistrial, especially if they are brief and not emphasized during the trial. This case may serve as a precedent for future cases where similar issues arise.

The decision affects not only Cherisme but also sets a standard for how courts handle inadvertent comments made during testimony. It underscores the importance of context in determining whether a comment can unfairly influence a jury's perception.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Cherisme plans to appeal this decision further. There are no related cases pending at this time.