MICHAEL T. WILLIAMS, 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.
Williams was convicted of armed robbery after a supermarket robbery committed while he was photographed. On appeal, he challenged the prosecutor's improper closing argument suggesting that acquittal would allow him to commit future crimes, but the court affirmed because the photographic evidence was so overwhelming that the prosecutorial error was harmless.
Although the prosecutor's argument was improper and thoroughly disapproved by the court, it does not justify reversal because the photographic evidence of Williams's guilt was so overwhelming that the prosecutorial statements constitute harmless error.
[1] A prosecutor's argument that a defendant acquitted of a crime will be able to commit further crimes is improper and has been repeatedly condemned.
[2] Improper prosecutorial argument may be considered harmless error if the evidence of guilt is overwhelming.
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“Statements like the one made below — which was exacerbated by being substantially repeated with the apparent approval of the trial court — -that if Williams were found not guilty, 'he can walk out of this courtroom [and] go to work again just like he did that night,' have been condemned in a long and uninterrupted series of Florida cases.”
Establishes that the prosecutor's statement was improper and contrary to established law
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was charged with armed robbery of a supermarket. A photograph was taken of Williams during the commission of the robbery. During closing argu…
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 Inflammatory Closing Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
Williams was convicted of the armed robbery of a supermarket. In treating his sole point on appeal, we once more find, as we have recently with wearying repetitiveness, see Jackson v. State, 421 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and cases cited; Hines v. State, 425 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), that the prosecutor’s final argument was infected with error. Statements like the one made below — which was exacerbated by being substantially repeated with the apparent approval of the trial court — -that if Williams were found not guilty, “he can walk out of this courtroom [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 thoroughly disapprove of the argument, we cannot hold that it justifies reversal. The evidence against Williams, which included a photograph taken of him while the robbery was being committed, was so overwhelming that the statements must be regarded as no more than harmless improprieties. E.g., Zamot v. State, 375 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Affirmed.
. The pertinent portion of the transcript is as follows:
[MS. WEINTRAUB]: Defense counsel told you and I agree with him, if you find Michael Williams, the Defendant, not guilty, he can walk out of this courtroom. He can walk out, go to work again just like he did that night, nicely dressed. MR. SCHWARTZ: Objection, your Honor. I have a motion. May we approach the bench. THE COURT: Let’s have a side bar. (Thereupon, counsel for the respective parties and the court reporter approached the bench and the following proceedings were had outside the hearing of the jury:) MR. SCHWARTZ: Your Honor, the Defendant objects to the statement by counsel as well as the raising of the picture by her, and also move for a mistrial upon the ground that by her gesture and by her statement, it’s letting the jurors now know letting him out of this courtroom, he will go out and do more crimes. That is inflammatory. That is prejudicial. It’s not relative— THE COURT: Did I hear her say he is going to commit more crimes? MR. SCHWARTZ: Held up that picture, the one identified, the one— THE COURT: For holding up the picture? MR. SCHWARTZ: For saying that he is going to work. There is no doubt in my mind as to what that meant. THE COURT: Motion for a mistrial is denied. (Thereupon, the following proceedings were had within the hearing of the jury:) THE COURT: Jurors will disregard the last statement of the prosecution. Proceed. MS. WEINTRAUB: Do I have the Court’s permission to complete my last sentence? THE COURT: Agree. MS. WEINTRAUB: If you find the Defendant not guilty, I agree with defense counsel, he walks out of the courtroom, gets dressed just as he did that night and goes to work.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Edwards v. State, 428 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ithout ruling on the objection. We have been confronted with a rash of such arguments over the past year. Counsel have been consistently admonished, and the arguments have been condemned as unfair, intemperate, and unethical. See Williams v. State, 425 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Hines v. State, 425 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Jackson v. State, 421 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Chapman v. State, 417 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Gomez v. State, 415 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Harris v. State, 414…
-
Hall v. State, 444 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…commit the crime when he was apprehended very shortly after it occurred, was so overwhelming as to render the argument legally harmless. State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1984); Carr v. State, 430 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Williams v. State, 425 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Our function is to determine the result of this and every other appeal in accordance with the demands of essential justice to all litigants in the cause. That high purpose is not achieved if a reversal is employed in a criminal c…
-
Williard v. State, 462 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…idence adduced against Williard was so overwhelming that the statements of the prosecutor were harmless error. See Carr v. State, 430 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). See also Broomfield v. State, 436 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Williams v. State, 425 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Zamot v. State, 375 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). [*104] Williard also argues that the court below erred by sentencing him in excess of the guidelines under which he elected to be sentenced pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal P…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Jackson v. State, 421 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Chavez v. State, 215 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- McMILLIAN v. State, 409 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Gomez v. State, 415 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Griffith v. State, 214 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Russell v. State, 233 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Jessee v. State, 375 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Zamot v. State, 375 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Robinson v. Wright, 425 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Hines v. State, 425 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)