RICHARD MENARD, 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.
The court held that the state's statement waiving its closing argument was not a final argument, and thus the defendant was not entitled to conclude the argument.
After the defense made its closing argument, the state waived its right to respond. The defendant then requested to conclude the argument, arguing the…
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 Waiver Of Arguments cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Chief Judge.
After the defense made closing argument, the state waived its right to respond and the court denied the defendant’s request to conclude, made because he had offered no testimony other than his own. We affirm.
Every now and again, in the tragic world of criminal appeals, comes a case that brings an involuntary smile to otherwise grim lips. This is one of those, though it cannot be expected to afford any amusement to the defendant.
At the end of the initial final argument presented by the defense, the state’s entire response was:
The State of Florida is going to rely on the evidence and testimony before the Court and the jury’s common sense, and we will waive our argument.
The defense, discomfited by this tactic, pressed for the right to conclude on the basis that the comment “relying on the evidence and common sense” did not constitute a waiver and actually was final argument. See Andrews v. State, 99 Fla. 1350, 129 So. 771 (Fla.1930). We disagree. The remarks did not address the evidence in particular nor any of the testimony. Nor did they dwell unnecessarily on the level of intellectual consideration to be expended by the jury. Moreover, unlike the discourse in Andrews, supra, the comments were but a very few words and in our opinion did not rise to the level of a final argument.
AFFIRMED.
BERANEK and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dolan Darling v. State, 808 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 2002)…serted, “I think I can save the court some time. The evidence speaks for itself. We rest.” The trial court concluded that this did not constitute final argument on the part of the state, and the district court affirmed. We agree. In Menard v. State, 427 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert, denied, 434 So. 2d 888 (1983), the fourth district court, when faced with a similar situation, stated: Every now and again, in the tragic world of criminal appeals, comes a case that brings involuntary smile to otherwise grim…
-
Dean v. State, 478 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1985)…serted, “I think I can save the court some time. The evidence speaks for itself. We rest.” The trial court concluded that this did not constitute final argument on the part of the state, and the district court affirmed. We agree. In Menard v. State, 427 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 434 So. 2d 888 (1983), the fourth district court, when faced with a similar situation, stated: Every now and again, in the tragic world of criminal appeals, comes a case that brings involuntary smile to otherwise grim…
-
Dean v. State, 430 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…aiver addressed to the court [‘T think I can save the court some time. The evidence speaks for itself. We rest.”] cannot legitimately be construed, as urged, as an indirect jury argument which required a rebuttal by defense counsel. Menard v. State, 427 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Even if we were to construe the state’s waiver as an oblique one sentence jury argument, the error, if any, in not allowing a reply to so fleeting a comment can hardly be considered a reversible error. See Palmes v. State, 397 S…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Andrews v. State, 99 Fla. 1350 (Fla. 1930)