DONALD E. RICHMOND, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Donald Richmond appeals a robbery conviction. While affirming the conviction, the court criticized the prosecutor's improper personal vouching for a state witness's credibility, finding no reversible error because the defense failed to object.
Although the prosecutor violated disciplinary rules by personally vouching for the witness's credibility, the conviction must be affirmed because the defense counsel failed to object to the comments or move for a mistrial, and no objection was waived by invitation from defense counsel.
[1] A prosecutor's statement vouching for the honesty and truthfulness of a state's witness constitutes a violation of professional responsibility rules.
[2] A conviction will not be reversed based on a prosecutor's improper vouching for a witness when the defense fails to object or move for a mistrial.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“That means the State vouches for his honesty and his truthfulness in this particular case. And as a representative of the State of Florida, I do that; after interviewing Mr. Ellis intensively, and after talking to him intensively, I do vouch for him, and I do say that he is, and he is represented to be, by the State of Florida, a witness who came forward and told the truth in this matter.”
The prosecutor's improper personal vouching for the witness's credibility, which violated ethical rules.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichmond was convicted of robbery. At trial, the prosecution presented Kevin Phillip Ellis as a state's witness. The assistant state attorney made sta…
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 Vouching For Witness Credibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a robbery conviction. Although we affirm the conviction of the appellant, we deem it necessary to comment upon the conduct of trial counsel and certain statements made by the prosecutor in regard to a state’s witness. The assistant state attorney said
Now as to Kevin Phillip Ellis, he was a State’s witness. That means the State vouches for his honesty and his truthfulness in this particular case. And as a representative of the State of Florida, I do that; after interviewing Mr. Ellis intensively, and after talking to him intensively, I do vouch for him, and I do say that he is, and he is represented to be, by the State of Florida, a witness who came forward and told the truth in this matter. And that’s exactly what he did in this matter. * * * * * *
But I’m stating to you, and I contend that Mr. Ellis, in this particular situation, with this particular case, and all the events surrounding the case, has told you the truth, the honest truth, as he knows it to be, as it happened that night . . .
Because there was no objection to these comments, there is no error for this court to correct. Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1978). The comments were not invited by defense counsel, and this type of comment can hardly by invited. The speaker was in violation of disciplinary rule 7-106(c)(4), Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility, when he made those comments but that does not mean we should reverse the conviction of the appellant where no objection and no motion for mistrial was made. Clark v. State. See Sequin v. Houser Motor Co., 350 So. 2d 1089 (Fla.4th DCA1977).
Finding no error, we affirm the conviction and sentence.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Malla Landry v. State, 620 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…correct that the claim regarding the unblemished records was not adequately supported by the record and constituted impermissible bolstering of the officers’ testimony. E.g., Blackburn v. State, 447 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Richmond v. State, 387 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Francis v. State, 384 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Because this case came down to a swearing match between the officers and appellant’s witness, the error cannot be considered harmless. The prosecutor also tried to denigrate…
-
Lenon Lee McARTHUR, Jr. v. State, 801 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…hat the state’s improper bolstering of a law enforcement officer in closing argument is reversible error, see Livingston v. State, 682 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Cisneros v. State, 678 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Williams; Richmond v. State, 387 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), it was equally impermissible for the State to bolster J.D.’s testimony. However, these cases are distinguishable because, unlike the instant case, timely objections were made to the improper remarks and the fundamental error an…
-
Davis v. State, 663 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…that the claim regarding the unblemished records was not adequately supported by the record and constituted impermissible bolstering of the officers’ testimony. E.g., Blackburn v. State, 447 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); [*1382] Richmond v. State, 387 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Francis v. State, 384 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Because this case came down to a swearing match between the officers and appellant’s witness, the error cannot be considered harmless. In this case, the comments were nearly…
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
- Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1978)
- Seguin v. Hauser Motor Co., 350 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)