RODNEY WILLIAMS, 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.
The court held that while a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's trial demeanor was improper, it did not require reversal due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
The appellant was convicted of armed robbery and armed burglary. During closing arguments, the prosecutor commented on the appellant's laughing and sn…
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 Improper Prosecutorial Comment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a conviction for armed robbery and armed burglary. We affirm.
The appellant, Rodney Williams, contends the trial court committed reversible error in denying a defense motion for a mistrial based upon an improper statement of the prosecutor. In the prosecutor’s final argument to the jury, the prosecutor commented upon the appellant’s laughing and snickering during the trial.
We agree that the State’s comment on appellant’s demeanor at trial, was improper. Pope v. Wainwright, 496 So. 2d 798 (Fla.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 951, 107 S.Ct. 1617, 94 L.Ed.2d 801 (1987). However, we do not find that such improper comment requires reversal of the judgments of conviction. This is because we find there was overwhelming evidence of guilt in this case, as established by the testimony of the victim, who positively identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the offenses. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986); McCray v. State, 503 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). A similar comment was made by the prosecutor in Pope v. Wainwright, 496 So. 2d at 802. The Florida Supreme Court stated:
At first blush, the petitioner’s cumulative impact argument may appear very persuasive; however, after reviewing the entire record and all the challenged comments which arguably could have influenced the jury in its determination of guilt, we find that the comments taken individually or as a whole did not so infect the proceeding as to deprive the petitioner of his fundamental right to a fair trial.
Pope, 496 So. 2d at 802.
Having reviewed the record in the present case, we affirm the judgments of conviction appealed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wellons v. State, 87 So. 3d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…, 609 So. 2d 493, 501 (Fla.1992) (declaring "the defendant’s demeanor off the witness stand is not a proper subject for argument and in some cases may be unduly prejudicial.”). Accord Pope v. Wainwright, 496 So. 2d 798 (Fla.1986); Williams v. State, 550 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Baldez v. State, 679 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Pope v. Louie L. Wainwright, 496 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1986)
- Adkins v. United States, 480 U.S. 951 (U.S. 1987)
- McCRAY v. State, 503 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)