ALEX SIMS, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Alex Sims Jr. was convicted of third-degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and unlawful possession of a firearm after a jury trial. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the prosecutor's inflammatory closing argument suggesting the defendant would commit another murder if acquitted deprived him of a fair trial.
The prosecutor's comments created an unmistakable impression that appellant would commit another murder if acquitted and deprived him of a fair trial. The repetition of the comment after the court's ruling compounded the error. The trial court erred in denying the motion for mistrial, and reversal was required.
[1] A prosecutor's comment suggesting a defendant will commit another crime if acquitted is highly prejudicial and inflammatory.
[2] A prosecutor's improper assertion of matters not in evidence to prejudice the jury violates due process.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“This remark, in the context in which it was made, created the unmistakable impression that appellant would commit another murder should he be acquitted.”
The court's analysis of why the prosecutor's statement was highly prejudicial and inflammatory.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was tried by jury and convicted of third-degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and unlawful possession of a firearm. During closi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Third Degree Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellant, defendant below, brings this appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the trial court after a jury trial. Appellant was found guilty of third degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and unlawful possession of a firearm. We reverse.
Among the points raised on appeal is one which requires reversal. This point is stated by appellant as follows:
“The court erred in denying defendant’s motion for mistrial based on the highly prejudicial comment made by the prosecutor in his closing argument, thereby violating defendant’s right to due process as guaranteed to him by the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution where the prosecutor stated that defense counsel would congratulate defendant at the end of the trial and tell him to ‘go get another one’. “A. The prosecutor overstepped the bounds of propriety and fairness by making improper assertions of matters not in evidence in order to prejudice and unduly influence the jury.
“B. The prosecutor’s statement exceeded the proper bounds for retaliatory remarks by the prosecution in response to statements made by the defense. “C. Where an improper remark is repeated, the proper remedy is a mistrial.”
The record reflects that during closing argument to the jury, appellee made the following comment:
“I’ll throw in a mud sling. I’ll tell you that that [sic] jury, by the time they finish with this case, they’re going to come back and they’re going to shake Alex Sims’ [defendant below] hand. ‘Go get another one, Alex.’ ”
This remark, in the context in which it was made, created the unmistakable impression that appellant would commit another murder should he be acquitted. Such remarks have consistently been found to be highly prejudicial and inflammatory to a jury. In our opinion, the making of this remark in the jury’s presence deprived appellant of a fair trial. After appellee made the prejudicial remark, the trial court sustained appellant’s objection to the statement. Immediately after this ruling, appellee repeated the comment: “Go get another one.” This additional comment added further to the error. See, e. g., Grant v. State, 194 So. 2d 612 (Fla.1967); Porter v. State, 347 So. 2d 449 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Malery v. State, 303 So. 2d 369 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Thompson v. State, 235 So. 2d 354 (Fla.3d DCA 1970); Russell v. State, 233 So. 2d 154 (Fla.4th DCA 1970); and Chavez v. State, 215 So. 2d 750 (Fla.2d DCA 1968). Based upon the reasons and the authorities set forth above, it was reversible error for the trial court to deny appellant’s motion for a mistrial. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence appealed are reversed and the cause is remanded for a retrial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Teffeteller v. State, 439 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1983)…place in our system of jurisprudence for this argument. See Grant v. State, 194 So. 2d 612 (Fla.1967); Singer v. State, 109 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1959); Williams v. State, 68 So. 2d 583 (Fla.1953); Stewart v. State, 51 So. 2d 494 (Fla.1951); Sims v. State, 371 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).2 We thus reverse the sentence of death for first-degree murder and remand back to the trial court to hold a new sentencing trial before a jury. Appellant next argues that the trial court erred in imposing the death sentence in t…
-
Elvis Harris v. State, 414 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…(Mo.App.1978). The judgments and sentences are severally reversed and this cause remanded for a new trial on all counts. . See, e.g., Grant v. State, 194 So. 2d 612 (Fla.1967); Goddard v. State, 143 Fla. 28, 196 So. 596, 600 (1940); Sims v. State, 371 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Porter v. State, 347 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Thompson v. State, 318 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Brown v. State, 284 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Price v. State, 267 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Chavez v. State, 215…
-
Williams v. State, 425 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…m [and] go to work again just like he did that night,”1 have been condemned in a long and uninterrupted series of Florida cases. Gomez v. State, 415 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); McMillian v. State, 409 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Sims v. State, 371 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Porter v. State, 347 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Russell v. State, 233 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Chavez v. State, 215 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Davis v. State, 214 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). While we therefore t…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- LEE A. Tharpe Constr. Co. v. Chivers, 194 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1967)
- Chavez v. State, 215 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Diaz v. Warren, 303 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Mabery v. State, 303 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Russell v. State, 233 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Porter v. State, 347 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Demetra Thompson v. State, 235 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)