GILBERTO ALVAREZ, 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.
Affirmed conviction for robbery, burglary, and sexual battery; prosecutor's closing argument comment was proper response to defense counsel's unsupported suggestion of withheld fingerprint evidence.
A prosecutor may comment during closing arguments on the absence of exculpatory evidence when defense counsel has suggested without evidentiary support that such evidence was suppressed.
[1] A prosecutor may respond in closing argument to defense counsel's unsupported suggestion that exculpatory evidence was suppressed by commenting on the absence of such evi…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“If there is any other evidence in this case which might definitely exonerate the defendant and point to somebody else that committed this crime you might expect that you would have heard from them as well.”
Prosecutor's closing argument responding to defense counsel's unsupported claim about withheld fingerprint evidence.
Alvarez was convicted of robbery, burglary of a dwelling, and sexual battery. Defense counsel argued without evidence that police had compared latent …
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 Suppression Of Exculpatory Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Alvarez seeks reversal of his conviction for robbery, burglary of a dwell ing, and sexual battery, citing improper prosecutorial comment during closing arguments. We find no error and affirm.
The challenged remarks are as follows: On the other hand, if there was evidence in this case of [fingerjprints that would definitely have acquitted and pointed in the direction of somebody else, I would have thought you would have heard something concerning that in this case as well ... If there is any other evidence in this case which might definitely exonerate the defendant and point to somebody else that committed this crime you might expect that you would have heard from them as well.
We conclude that the prosecutor’s comment was an appropriate response to defense counsel’s earlier argument which suggested, without the slightest evidentiary support, that the police had compared the latent fingerprints removed from the knife with those of the defendant, found that they did not match, and kept that evidence from the jury. See, e.g., Allen v. State, 320 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), appeal dism., 330 So. 2d 725 (Fla.1976); Dixon v. State, 206 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); United States v. Tasto, 586 F. 2d 1068 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 928, 99 S.Ct. 1263, 59 L.Ed.2d 484 (1979).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. State, 435 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…there because the wife called them and asked for their help is an appropriate response to an argument insinuating that these officers were acting well outside their legal duties. Denny v. State, 404 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Alvarez v. State, 401 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Lynn v. State, 395 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). This remark by the state did not so fundamentally taint the proceedings that neither an objection nor a retraction could entirely destroy its “sinister” influence. Coleman v. Sta…
-
Jacques Barratteau v. State, 422 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ts of counsel and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978); A. McD. v. State, 422 So. 2d 336 (Fla.3d DCA 1982); Bennett v. State, 405 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Alvarez v. State, 401 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Hufham v. State, 400 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Phillips v. State, 351 So. 2d 738 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 834 (Fla.1978); Frierson v. State, 339 So. 2d 312 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); see Clark v. State, 363 So. 2…
Authorities Cited
- Best v. United States, 440 U.S. 928 (U.S. 1979)
- Whalen v. United States, 440 U.S. 928 (U.S. 1979)
- United States v. Tasto, 586 F.2d 1068 (5th Cir. 1978)
- Allen v. State, 320 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Dixon v. State, 206 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)