ANTHONY GUTIERREZ, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed convictions for second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder despite defense counsel's improper closing argument, finding the error harmless in light of overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Defense counsel's improper closing argument suggesting jurors would be on drugs if they believed the State's witness constituted error but was harmless given overwhelming evidence of guilt and a curative instruction.
[1] Defense counsel's improper closing argument suggesting jurors would be on drugs if they believed a witness constitutes error but does not warrant reversal when overwhelmi…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“I think if you believe [the State's witness], you have got to be on drugs.”
Defense counsel's improper closing argument to the jury regarding witness credibility.
Anthony Gutierrez was convicted of second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder. During closing argument, defense counsel made an improper …
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 Overwhelming Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Gutierrez seeks reversal of convictions and sentences for second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder. We affirm the judgments of conviction and sentences in all respects. We find it necessary, however, to remind the trial court of its responsibility for controlling attorney misconduct. See Hill v. State, 515 So. 2d 176 (Fla.1987) (cautioning that trial courts of this state must accept more responsibility for controlling prosecutorial misconduct), cert. denied sub nom., Hill v. Florida, 485 U.S. 993, 108 S.Ct. 1302, 99 L.Ed.2d 512 (1988). In closing argument, defense counsel stated to the jurors: “I think if you believe [the State’s witness], you have got to be on drugs_” Statements like these are highly improper and must be condemned. See Mack v. State, 461 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 471 So. 2d 43 (Fla.1985); Williams v. State, 425 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Although we thoroughly disapprove of the conduct of defense counsel in this case and find that it did indeed constitute error, reversal is not justified because the overwhelming evidence of guilt against Gutierrez and the curative instruction given rendered the error harmless. See, e.g., Zamot v. State, 375 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hill v. State, 515 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1987)
- Williams v. State, 425 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Texas v. Long, 485 U.S. 993 (U.S. 1988)
- Shimoda v. Akao, 485 U.S. 993 (U.S. 1988)
- Jessee v. State, 375 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Zamot v. State, 375 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- The City OF Delray Beach v. Shalanda Watts, 461 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)