ROBERT LEE PAULK, 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.
Robert Lee Paulk appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, challenging the trial court's denial of his right to present concluding argument to the jury. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that defendant's introduction of documentary evidence constituted a waiver of the right to concluding argument despite the document having been mentioned during the state's case.
A defendant waives the right to concluding argument by introducing independent evidence on his own behalf, regardless of whether the document was previously mentioned in the State's case. The mere mention of a document in incidental fashion and without presentation of its content does not prevent it from constituting independent evidence that triggers the waiver.
[1] A defendant waives the right to present the concluding argument to the jury if the defendant introduces evidence other than their own testimony.
[2] Introducing documentary evidence, even if previously mentioned by the State, constitutes the introduction of independent evidence on the defendant's behalf, thereby waivi…
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“The defendant is generally held to have this right if he offers no testimony in his own behalf other than his own.”
Establishes the baseline rule that defendants have a right to concluding argument unless they present evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Paulk was convicted of aggravated assault. During trial, while cross-examining a state witness, Paulk introduced documentary evidence as a d…
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 Right To Concluding Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
Defendant appeals his conviction of aggravated assault.
We conclude that error has not been demonstrated and in affirming choose to comment on only one point raised by appellant. The trial court denied appellant’s request to have the concluding argument before the jury. The defendant is generally held to have this right if he offers no testimony in his own behalf other than his own. See Crosby v. State, 90 Fla. 381, 106 So. 741 (1925), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.250. The introduction of other evidence by a defendant results in a waiver of the right to present the concluding argument. In the present case, the defendant introduced documentary evidence while in the process of cross-examining a state witness. The document was received as a defense exhibit and the court ruled, in accordance with Crosby v. State, supra, and Grimsley v. State, 304 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), that defendant thereby waived the right to concluding argument.
Defendant contends this was reversible error because the document had been previously mentioned in the State’s case. Defendant urges that Lyttle v. State, 320 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), requires a different ruling.
We conclude the trial court correctly applied the Crosby and Grimsley precedents rather than the Lyttle rationale. The existence of the document in question had merely been mentioned in the State’s case and none of its content had been presented or disclosed in any way. The document was mentioned in an incidental fashion only and was in no way part of the State’s evidence. As such, when it was introduced by defendant, it constituted independent evidence on defendant’s behalf. The court correctly ruled that defendant thereby did not have concluding argument. All other points are without merit.
AFFIRMED.
LETTS, C. J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Retired, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Crosby v. State, 90 Fla. 381 (Fla. 1925)
- Grimsley v. State, 304 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Lyttle v. State, 320 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)