JAMES SEYMOUR, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Hall v. State, 444 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
  …d who identified him as the perpetrator they had seen 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…
• Williard v. State, 462 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
  …even though the prosecutor’s comments to the jury were improper, we are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence 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…
• Rubin Otero v. State, 754 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
  …CA 1999) (citations omitted). An argument which tells the jury that it sits as the conscience of the community has specifically been found to be inflammatory and impermissible. See Williard v. State, 462 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Carr v. State, 430 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Although we find that the prosecutor’s comments in this regard to be improper and we admonish the state from advancing similar arguments in the future, we cannot find this impermissible argument warrants a reversal. Id. First of…

  ← 1 / 2 →

Authorities Cited

• Williams v. State, 425 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)