CHRISTOPHER SHORTER, 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.
Christopher Shorter was convicted of second-degree murder and firearm possession during a criminal offense. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument and cross-examination that deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
The court held that the prosecutor engaged in improper conduct on two grounds: (1) suggesting without evidentiary support that the defendant's sister had previously attacked the victim with a knife, and (2) suggesting on cross-examination that the defendant had injured three police officers during arrest. When considered in totality, this misconduct deprived the defendant of a fair trial and constituted reversible error.
[1] Prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument, such as suggesting facts not in evidence, constitutes improper conduct that may warrant reversal.
[2] Suggesting on cross-examination that a defendant engaged in violent conduct during arrest is improper if its prejudicial impact outweighs its relevance to consciousness o…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 prosecuting attorney was guilty of improper conduct in his suggestion made during final argument to the jury that the defendant's sister had previously attacked the homicide victim with a knife; there was utterly no evidence adduced below to support this suggestion.”
Establishes the first basis for reversible error—unsupported prosecutorial argument in closing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShorter was charged with second-degree murder and possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense. The case centered on whether Shorter sh…
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 Impact Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence for second-degree murder and possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense. We reverse and remand for a new trial based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.
First, we conclude that the prosecuting attorney was guilty of improper conduct in his suggestion made during final argument to the jury that the defendant’s sister had previously attacked the homicide victim with a knife; there was utterly no evidence adduced below to support this suggestion. The trial court, in our view, erred in allowing the prosecuting attorney to make this argument. Huff v. State, 437 So. 2d 1087, 1089 (Fla.1983); Duque v. State, 498 So. 2d 1334, 1337 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); State v. Davis, 411 So. 2d 1354, 1355 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Glassman v. State, 377 So. 2d 208, 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Second, we conclude that the prosecuting attorney was also guilty of improper conduct by suggesting on cross examination of the defendant that the defendant had put three police officers in the hospital when the defendant was arrested in this case. Assuming there was some evidence to support this suggestion, we conclude such evidence would have been inadmissible in evidence as its prejudicial impact far outweighed whatever limited relevance it might have as to defendant’s alleged consciousness of guilt. Although the trial court correctly sustained the defendant’s objection to the prosecuting attorney’s improper question, its subsequent cautionary instruction failed to undo the damage done by this time bomb of a question. Jackson v. State, 451 So. 2d 458, 461 (Fla.1984), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. June 14, 1988); Finklea v. State, 471 So. 2d 596, 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); see Vazquez v. State, 405 So. 2d 177, 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), approved in part, quashed in part, 419 So. 2d 1088 (Fla.1982); § 90.403, Fla.Stat. (1987).
Lastly, we conclude that the above-stated prosecutorial misconduct, when considered in totality, deprived the defendant of a fair trial in this otherwise close case on whether the defendant shot the deceased with criminal intent or in self-defense; the trial court, therefore, committed reversible error in (1) allowing the aforesaid argument to the jury, and (2) refusing to grant the defendant’s motion for mistrial based on the prosecuting attorney’s suggestion concerning the defendant’s alleged resisting arrest. The improper suggestion in closing argument to the jury concerning the alleged knife attack by the defendant’s sister on the homicide victim was designed to undermine the theory of defense that the homicide victim was shot by the defendant in self-defense by showing that the said victim was not the violent person the defendant attempted to portray at trial—and that the homicide victim’s conduct in shooting the defendant’s sister after the alleged knife attack was really an act of self-defense on his part.
Moreover, the improper suggestion concerning the defendant’s arrest conduct in putting three police officers in the hospital was designed to prove that the defendant was a violent person, thereby further discrediting the defendant’s self-defense testimony at trial. This being so, we cannot agree that this prosecutorial misconduct was harmless under the circumstances of this case; on the contrary, we conclude that the said conduct was very prejudicial to the defendant and may very well have tipped the scales in favor of the state. Williamson v. State, 459 So. 2d 1125, 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Tuff v. State, 509 So. 2d 953, 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Singletary v. State, 483 So. 2d 8, 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Coleman v. State, 420 So. 2d 354, 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); McMillian v. State, 409 So. 2d 197, 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Glantz v. State, 343 So. 2d 88, 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DeFREITAS v. State, 701 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…e jurors on this point when he stated: Unless you believe [Detective Cami-lo’s] a perjurer, he is a criminal and likes to point the finger at innocent people, if you believe that, let me know. I will sit down now. Id. at 591. In Shorter v. State, 532 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), the Third District Court of Appeal reversed a second-degree murder conviction because of prosecutorial misconduct which occurred during the prosecutor’s closing argument to the jury and during his cross-examination of the defenda…
-
Bass v. State, 547 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…is little or nothing to corroborate the testimony of the witnesses, witness credibility is pivotal and inappropriate prosecutorial comment which might be found to be harmless in another setting may become prejudicially harmful. See Shorter v. State, 532 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1988); Hill v. State, 477 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1985); Williamson v. State, 459 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1984); McMillian v. State, 409 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982); Gomez v. State, 415 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982). In its brief on ap…
-
Cabrera v. State, 576 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…sing argument should have been sustained insofar as it was susceptible of a suggestion that defendant may be engaged in other uncharged criminal conduct. See Randolph v. State, 556 So. 2d 808, 809 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); see generally Shorter v. State, 532 So. 2d 1110, 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); State v. Bermudez, 515 So. 2d 421, 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). We conclude, however, that the comments complained of by defendant were harmless. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).1 Defendant’s third point has m…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (16 total)
- State v. Vazquez, 419 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 1982)
- Jackson v. State, 451 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1984)
- McMILLIAN v. State, 409 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Huff v. State, 437 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1983)
- Williamson v. State, 459 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Thorndike v. State, 420 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Singletary v. State, 483 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Jester v. State, 405 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Vazquez v. State, 405 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Tuff v. State, 509 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)