NATHANIEL HOUSTON, 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.
The court held that prosecutorial comments during closing argument, while improper, did not rise to the level of reversible error when no curative instruction or mistrial was requested.
The appellant was convicted of robbery. During closing arguments, the prosecutor made comments attacking the appellant's truthfulness. Defense counsel…
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 Curative Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was charged, tried and convicted of the crime of robbery, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. During closing argument at trial, the prosecutor made several comments which attacked the veracity of the appellant. Two examples of those statements are:
“Who is telling the truth? If a witness has shown to have knowingly testified falsely concerning any material matter— and he did, he testified falsely — you have a right to distrust such a witness.”
“Who is telling the truth in this case? Him? The convicted felon? He is telling you the truth, or Bacallao, Reyes, Cohen, and a police officer? They are telling you the truth in this case. What do they have to gain? What does he have to lose?”
Appellant’s counsel objected to these remarks, but at no time did he request a curative instruction or a mistrial.
On appeal, the appellant contends the prosecutory’s highly prejudicial comments, made in his closing argument, were so improper as to deny him of his right to a fair trial. We affirm on the authority of Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1978); Nevels v. State, 364 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); State v. Cumbie, 380 So. 2d 1031 (Fla.1980); cf. Spenkelink v. State, 350 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1977).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cisneros v. State, 678 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…ey do constitute an inappropriate attempt to persuade the jury that the police officer’s testimony should be believed simply because the witness is a police officer. See Garrette v. State, 501 So. 2d 1376, 1379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Houston v. State, 394 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Second, such comments make reference to matters outside the record and constituted impermissible bolstering of the police officer’s testimony. In the instant case, the prosecutor’s argument that “Tom Hagler is not the type of ma…
-
Davis v. State, 663 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…s argument constitutes an inappropriate attempt to persuade the jury that the police officer’s testimony should be believed simply because he or she is a police officer. Garrette v. State, 501 So. 2d 1376, 1379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Houston v. State, 394 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). In no uncertain terms, the prosecutor’s argument was that police officers would not testify falsely because they have too much at stake and would not risk their jobs. In addition, the argument makes reference to matters outside…
-
State v. Fritz, 652 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…State, 572 So. 2d 1336, 1340 (Fla.1990), cert, denied, 502 U.S. 854, 112 S.Ct. 164, 116 L.Ed.2d 128 (1991); Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331, 335 (Fla.1978), abrogated on other grounds, State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986); Houston v. State, 394 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); see also Simpson v. State, 418 So. 2d 984, 986 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1156, 103 S.Ct. 801, 74 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1983). Additionally, we reject any notion that the state’s comment represents fundamental error. Crump v. St…
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)
- State v. Cumbie, 380 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 1980)
- Spenkelink v. State, 350 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1977)
- City CAB Co. OF Orlando, Inc. v. Webber, 364 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Nevels v. State, 364 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)