Perkins v. State
Docket: 84-803
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; February 7, 1985; Florida; State Appellate Court
Dorman E. Perkins was convicted by a jury of three counts of uttering a forged check and subsequently appealed the decision. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, affirmed the conviction on February 8, 1985. Perkins raised three main issues on appeal. First, he contended the trial court erred by not providing a requested jury instruction on his defense of authorization to sign another's name. The court clarified that while a defendant is entitled to jury instructions on valid defenses, the trial court's instructions already covered the defense of authorization adequately. The elements required for the state to prove the crime would inherently negate any claim of authorization. The court found no error in the trial court's refusal to give Perkins’ specialized instruction, as the standard jury instructions sufficiently encompassed the necessary legal principles. Second, Perkins argued that the trial court should have declared a mistrial due to alleged prosecutorial impropriety. However, the court found no remarks from the prosecutor regarding defense counsel that warranted a mistrial. Lastly, Perkins claimed the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based on the prosecutor’s reference to his invocation of Miranda rights. The court held that Perkins had opened the door for this rebuttal by asserting he had not made prior inconsistent statements, despite having remained silent. Therefore, the prosecutor's remarks were permissible. The court concluded that the trial court's rulings were correct and affirmed Perkins' conviction and sentence. Judges Danahy and Schoonover concurred with the decision. The appellant requested jury instructions indicating that evidence suggested Dorman Edward Perkins had authorization to sign Herbert D. Raley’s name on checks relevant to the case. If the jury finds that Raley’s signature was affixed with his knowledge or consent, they should acquit Perkins. Additionally, if there is reasonable doubt about whether Raley authorized Perkins to write the checks, the jury should also find Perkins not guilty. During the trial, the defense attorney, Mr. Miele, argued that the prosecution had not presented any evidence of inconsistent statements from Perkins and claimed the prosecution misrepresented the situation. The prosecutor, Mr. Young, referenced Perkins invoking his Miranda rights. Mr. Miele objected to this reference, leading to a request for a mistrial.