MARK ANTHONY JAMES, 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.
Mark Anthony James appealed his jury conviction for armed robbery, challenging comments made by the prosecutor during closing argument. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding any impropriety in the prosecutor's statement was cured by the trial court's admonishment and the prosecutor's clarifying explanation.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that any impropriety in the prosecutor's comment was cured by the trial court's admonishment and the prosecutor's follow-up explanations. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's handling of the objection and held that the comment did not constitute fundamental error, and thus was not properly preserved for review because defense counsel failed to move for a mistrial.
[1] A prosecutor's comment during closing argument that the jury should not disregard Florida Statutes by acquitting the defendant, even if improper, may be cured by the tria…
[2] A defendant must move for a mistrial to preserve for review a claim of prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, unless the misconduct constitutes fundamental er…
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“Now, these are Florida Statutes; they're the law in the State of Florida and we all live by them. And I submit to you that if you let that man walk free after what you have seen here and what you have heard here, you might as well throw those away because they will serve no purpose.”
The prosecutor's statement during closing argument that challenged the jury's ability to acquit by suggesting it would render the law meaningless
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames was tried by jury for armed robbery of a restaurant. During closing argument, the prosecutor stated that if the jury let the defendant walk free…
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 Closing Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction, after trial by jury, of armed robbery of a restaurant, citing as error comments made by the prosecutor during closing argument. We affirm.
During closing argument, the prosecutor stated:
Now, these are Florida Statutes; they’re the law in the State of Florida and we all live by them. And I submit to you that if you let that man walk free after what you have seen here and what you have heard here, you might as well throw those away because they will serve no purpose.
At that point, appellant’s attorney objected, stating that the above statement was unfair comment to the jury. He did not move for a mistrial. The court overruled the objection, stating:
Well, gentlemen, each of you are allowed to make your arguments as you deem best. I think the jury will take it in the sense in which it is intended. Let’s move along.
Thereafter, the prosecutor continued with his argument by explaining to the jury the meaning of the statement to which appellant’s attorney had objected.1 Defense counsel made no further objection to the prosecutor’s closing argument.
Any impropriety of the prosecutor’s comment was cured by the trial court’s admonishment and the follow-up explanations by the prosecutor. Appellant has not shown an abuse of discretion in the trial court’s handling of his objection. Further, since the comment did not constitute fundamental error, this point has not been properly preserved for review since appellant’s attorney did not move for a mistrial. Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1978); State v. Cumbie, 380 So. 2d 1031 (Fla.1980).
AFFIRMED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and SHIVERS, J., concur. . The prosecutor stated: “What I said was if you let that guilty man walk free, you throw away the laws of the State of Florida. And I think the state has proven he is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. I ask that you go into the jury room and you discuss the testimony as you heard it from the stand and the evidence as you have seen it. Don’t throw away the laws of Florida on some speculation. I ask you to do your duty as a jury and apply the law as it exists and as the judge gives it to you and to do justice.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walker v. State, 473 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…by the prosecutor in closing argument, we erred in making the following statement in our original opinion: “More importantly, defense counsel failed to move for a mistrial when the objections were made, so we are compelled to affirm. James v. State, 429 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).” Since this statement is an alternate ground for our decision on this issue, we delete the above quoted statement to avoid any need for discussion of James and Simpson v. State, 418 So. 2d 984 (Fla.1982). In all other respects,…1 / 2
-
Pozo v. State, 682 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…the lower tribunal’s refusal to declare a mistrial. Harm, if any, resulting from the prosecutrix’s first challenged comment was removed by the court’s curative instruction and the prosecutrix’s subsequent explanation of her remarks. James v. State, 429 So. 2d 1362, 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (“Any impropriety of the prosecutor’s comment was cured by the trial court’s admonishment and the follow-up explanations by the prosecutor.”). As the second challenged remark was brief and not inflammatory, it did not taint…
-
Amon Richards v. State, 635 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…innocence. Thus, this comment by the prosecutor was improper. See Jackson v. State, 575 So. 2d 181, 188 (Fla.1991). A prosecutor’s statements that correct what he previously said in closing arguments can help vitiate any error. See James v. State, 429 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Even though the prosecutor in the instant case immediately reminded the jury that the “burden always remains with the State,” he reiterated his point that defendant could have brought any evidence forward to prove someone commit…
Authorities Cited
- Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1978)
- State v. Cumbie, 380 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 1980)