ALEATHIA CRYSTAL DUPREE
v.
STATE
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.
Appellant Aleathia Crystal Dupree appealed her DUI conviction, challenging an improper statement by the State during closing argument that suggested the arrest was appropriate. The appellate court affirmed her conviction, finding that while the prosecutor's comment was improper as it invaded the jury's province, it did not constitute fundamental error given the strong inculpatory evidence presented at trial.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that while the prosecutor's statement was improper because it invaded the jury's province by telling the jury the arrest was appropriate rather than allowing the jury to decide disputed issues of fact, the statement did not rise to the level of fundamental error given the amount of inculpatory evidence introduced at trial.
[1] An appellate court reviews alleged errors in the absence of a timely objection under the standard of fundamental error.
[2] For an error to be considered fundamental and warrant reversal without a timely objection, it must be so pervasive that it undermines the validity of the trial and preven…
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“In order for an error to be fundamental and justify reversal in the absence of a timely objection, 'the error must reach down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.'”
Establishes the test for fundamental error review when a party fails to object at trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged with driving under the influence. Officer Junco observed certain driving patterns, the appellant's demeanor, speech, smell of al…
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 Province Of The Jury cases and more on FLexlaw
Before HIGBEE, ADAMS, and BLECHMAN, J.J.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Aleathia Crystal Dupree, appeals her judgment and sentence entered on May 14, 2019, after a jury found her guilty of driving under the influence. This Court has jurisdiction under Florida Statute section 26.012(1) and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(c)(1)(A).
We affirm and write only to address the improper statement made by the State during closing argument. Specifically, Appellant challenges the State’s following comment regarding Appellant’s performance on field sobriety exercises: Officer Junco said based on, you know, the driving pattern, the demeanor, the speech, the smell of alcohol, the poor performance on the field sobriety exercises, he thought it was appropriate to arrest this person, and he did. Because we’re not going to let somebody just drive on the road, wreck—waste on the—driving drunk on the road, putting other lives in jeopardy.
(Transcript of trial 270.)
Because Appellant failed to object to the State’s comment, the standard of review is fundamental error. Brinson v. State, 153 So. 3d 972, 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). “In order for an error to be fundamental and justify reversal in the absence of a timely objection, ‘the error must reach down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.’” Randolph v. State, 853 So. 2d 1051, 1068 (Fla. 2003) (quoting Brown v. State, 124 So. 481, 484 (Fla. 1960)). The remark invaded the province of the jury by telling the jury that the arrest was appropriate, rather than allowing the jury to decide the issue. See Brown v. State, 36 So. 3d 826, 829-830 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (Telling the jury to determine the lawfulness of police conduct does nothing to further the ends of justice. The jury decides disputed issues of fact.) While such a statement is improper, in view of the entire record and given the amount of inculpatory evidence introduced at trial, it does not rise to the level of fundamental error. Based on the foregoing, it is here by ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Appellant’s judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, on this ____ day of March, 2020.
Heather L. Higbee
Presiding Circuit Judge
ADAMS and BLECHMAN J.J., concur. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Order has been furnished to: The Honorable David P. Johnson, Orange County Judge, Orange County Courthouse, 425 N. Orange Ave., Orlando, FL 32801; Aleathia Crystal Dupree, 2042 Bowen Dr., Orlando, Florida 32822; Sarah Jordan, Assistant Public Defender, 2 Courthouse Square, Suite 1600, Kissimmee, Florida 34741; and Kelly Barbara Hicks, Assistant State Attorney, P.O. Box 1673, 415 N. Orange Ave., Suite 200, Orlando, Florida 32802-1673, on this ____ day of March, 2020.
Judicial Assistant
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Randolph v. State, 853 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 2003)
- Brinson v. State, 153 So. 3d 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
- Huran Brown v. State, 36 So. 3d 826 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)