DEBORAH RAHMINGS, 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.
Deborah Rahmings was convicted of aggravated assault after the prosecutor made inflammatory closing arguments suggesting that failure to convict would result in murder. The appellate court reversed, finding the prosecutor's remarks so prejudicial as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
The prosecutor's remarks were so prejudicial as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, and the conviction must be reversed and remanded for retrial.
[1] A prosecutor's remarks to a jury are improper when they create the impression that an acquittal would lead to future violent crime by the defendant.
[2] Highly prejudicial and inflammatory remarks by a prosecutor require reversal unless the appellate court can determine from the record that the improper statements did not…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Your conviction will do two things today: It will take the presumption of innocence totally away from her and you will sleep at night, because you're going to prevent a murder.”
The prosecutor's inflammatory closing argument that improperly suggested conviction was necessary to prevent future murder.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRahmings was charged with aggravated assault by use of a firearm. During closing argument, the prosecutor told jurors that convicting Rahmings would '…
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 Prejudicial Remarks cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.
This appeal involves the question of whether the remarks made by the prosecutor so prejudiced the defendant as to require a new trial.
Ms. Rahmings was charged with aggravated assault by use of a firearm. In his closing argument to the jury, the prosecutor stated:
Your conviction will do two things today: It will take the presumption of innocence totally away from her and you will sleep at night, because you’re going to prevent a murder. And that’s what it’s going to boil down to. One day Rahmings is going to come out and pull that trigger. So you can sleep real good tonight because you will have prevented a murder by giving her a conviction, believing the state’s case.
Counsel for the accused objected to this comment and moved for a mistrial. The motion was denied, and the jury found Rahmings guilty of aggravated assault without the use of a firearm. She now contends that the court should have granted a mistrial since the prosecutor’s remarks improperly influenced the jury.
Admittedly, counsel is permitted wide latitude in arguing to a jury. Breedlove v. State, 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1982). However, highly prejudicial and inflammatory remarks require reversal unless the appellate court can determine from the record that the improper statements did not prejudice the defendant. Pait v. State, 112 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1959); Chavez v. State, 215 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). Here, the prosecutor’s remarks may have been prompted by evidence of a previous altercation between the defendant and the victim. In any event, the comment created the impression that if the jury acquitted the defendant, she would subsequently commit a murder. Remarks of a similar nature brought about reversals in Grant v. State, 194 So. 2d 612 (Fla.1967); Sims v. State, 371 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Russell v. State, 233 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). We hold that the offending statement was so prejudicial as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction and sentence and remand for a retrial. Our decision makes any discussion of the remaining issues on appeal unnecessary.
SCHEB and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williard v. State, 462 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…und. THE COURT: Denied. Inflammatory comments of a prosecutor mandate a reversal of a defendant’s conviction unless the appellate court can determine from the record that the improper remarks did not prejudice the defendant. See Rahmings v. State, 425 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The evidence produced at the trial revealed the following uncontradicted facts: Williard was driving a vehicle which crossed the center line of a highway, striking and killing the victim, who was riding a motorcycle. A toxicolog…
-
Stephenson v. State, 31 So. 3d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…tor so deeply implant seeds of prejudice or confusion that even in the absence of a timely objection at the trial level it becomes the responsibility of this court to point out the error and if necessary reverse the conviction.”); Rahmings v. State, 425 So. 2d 1217, 1217 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1983) (“highly prejudicial and inflammatory remarks require rever [*852] sal unless the appellate court can determine from the record that the improper statements did not prejudice the defendant”); Chavez v. State, 215 So. 2d 750…
-
Irwin v. Singletary, 882 F. Supp. 1036 (M.D. Fla. 1995)…85). Thus, it was permissible for the State to support the detective’s credibility. 11 . Petitioner cites to Grant v. State, 194 So.2d 612 (Fla. 1967); Russell v. State, 233 So.2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Rahmings v. State, 425 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). 12 .Under Florida Statute 90.404(2), evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident…
Authorities Cited
- Coffman Realty, Inc. v. Tosohatchee Game Preserve, Inc., 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)
- McArthur Breedlove v. State, 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)
- In re Florida Appellate Rules, 112 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1959)
- LEE A. Tharpe Constr. Co. v. Chivers, 194 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1967)
- Chavez v. State, 215 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Russell v. State, 233 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Sims v. State, 371 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)