FABIAN HALL, 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.
Fabian Hall appealed his armed robbery conviction, challenging the prosecutor's final argument to the jury as containing unsupportable and improper statements designed to appeal to sympathy. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that while portions of the prosecutor's summation were indeed improper, the overwhelming evidence of guilt rendered any error harmless and did not justify reversal.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that although portions of the prosecutor's summation were unsupportable and improper, the overwhelming evidence of guilt—particularly the testimony of the victim and two eyewitnesses who identified Hall—rendered any prosecutorial misconduct harmless error that did not justify reversal.
[1] Prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments does not warrant reversal when the evidence of guilt is overwhelming and the misconduct is legally harmless.
[2] A conviction will not be overturned due to prosecutorial improprieties if those improprieties did not affect the outcome of the trial or the substantial rights of the def…
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“the improprieties do not justify reversal. The evidence against Hall, including the testimony of the victim and, more important, two eyewitnesses who had previously known the defendant and 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.”
Establishes the harmless error test and the court's conclusion that overwhelming evidence of guilt negates any prejudicial effect from prosecutorial misconduct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHall was convicted of armed robbery. The victim and two eyewitnesses who had previously known Hall identified him as the perpetrator. Hall was apprehe…
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 Armed Robbery Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The primary argument1 for reversal of the defendant’s armed robbery conviction raises a substantial question concerning the prosecutor’s final argument to the jury. We have concluded, however, although portions of the summation were in fact unsupportable,2 and even assuming that the issue was properly preserved below, that the improprieties do not justify reversal. The evidence against Hall, including the testimony of the victim and, more important, two eyewitnesses who had previously known the defendant and 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 not achieved if a reversal is employed in a criminal case solely to discipline an attorney for misconduct which did not affect the outcome of the trial or the substantial rights of the defendant. Other means in appropriate eases exist for that purpose. United States v. Beckett, 706 F. 2d 519, 521 (5th Cir.1983) (although improprieties harmless and therefore conviction affirmed on the ground that “criminal is not to go free because the prosecutor blundered,” court ordered disciplinary proceedings to be conducted against Assistant United States Attorney); see generally, United States v. Modica, 663 F. 2d 1173 (2d Cir.1981) (per curiam), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 989, 102 S.Ct. 2269, 73 L.Ed.2d 1284 (1982); Murray v. State, supra; Jackson v. State, 421 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).3 On this record, the judgment below is therefore Affirmed.
. The other has no merit and requires no discussion.
. One of the remarks in question is the following appeal for sympathy with the victim:
Do not decide this case because you feel sorry for anybody, because if you really feel sorry for anybody, I would ask you to feel sorry for Mr. Manfready.
You have heard so much about the Defendant’s right, and it’s well and good that our constitution gives people rights, but what about the rights of Mr. Manfready, that hard working cab driver, to earn a living, to be safe from this kind of action that you heard about today, in the last few days? His rights are the ones that have been sacrificed.
Feel sorry for him. Don’t feel sorry for him (indicating) because he’s the one that started this whole thing.
But see, e.g., Harper v. State, 411 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and cases cited.
.It is obvious that the mere fact that prosecutorial misconduct does not result in reversal does not render it acceptable behavior. See United States v. Beckett, supra, 706 F. 2d at 521-22.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Langdon v. State, 947 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…act as a code enforcement officer searching a record with the Florida rules in hand in order to find and correct any deviation and to punish the violator— in this case, the trial judge himself — by reversing his ultimate decision. See Hall v. State, 444 So. 2d 1019,1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)(“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 crimi…
-
Brown v. State, 954 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…... the [prosecutor’s] comment [in final argument] was ... wrong, it was, standing alone, and in the context of the entire case, not enough to vitiate the entire trial and require a new one. State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1984); Hall v. State, 444 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). While harmful prosecutorial excesses undoubtedly require reversal, Ruiz v. State, 743 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1999), and cases cited; Gomez v. State, 751 So. 2d 630 ... (Fla. 3d DCA ... 1999), and cases cited, it is also true, as was said…
-
Williams v. State, 744 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…if, contrary to this determination, the comment was indeed wrong, it was, standing alone, and in the context of the entire case, not enough to vitiate the entire trial and require a new one. State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1984); Hall v. State, 444 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). While harmful prosecuto-rial excesses undoubtedly require reversal, Ruiz v. State, 743 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1999), and cases cited; Gomez v. State, — So. 2d -, 1999 WL 1143736 (Fla. 3d DCA Case no. 98-2180, opinion filed, December 15, 1…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1984)
- United States v. Gaetano Modica, 663 F.2d 1173 (2d Cir. 1981)
- Jackson v. State, 421 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Hydrolevel Corp. v. Am. Soc'y of Mech. Eng'rs, Inc., 456 U.S. 989 (U.S. 1982)
- Robinson v. City of Junction City, 456 U.S. 989 (U.S. 1982)
- Harper v. State, 411 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Williams v. State, 425 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- United States v. Beckett, 706 F.2d 519 (5th Cir. 1983)
- Seymour v. State, 430 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Carr v. State, 430 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)