LARRY ALEXANDER HAM, 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 the prosecutor's closing argument did not denigrate reasonable doubt or the jury's function when read in context, and any error was harmless.
Defendant was convicted of false imprisonment, sexual battery, aggravated battery, and robbery. During closing arguments, the prosecutor stated the ju…
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 Closing Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Larry Ham appeals his conviction for false imprisonment, sexual battery, aggravated battery, and robbery. Defendant contends that his objection to a portion of the prosecution’s closing argument should have been sustained, and that a new trial is warranted, on the theory that the prosecutor’s comment denigrated the concept of reasonable doubt and the jury’s function with relation to it.* We conclude that when the argument is read in its full context, there was no denigration, and no material misstatement of the jury’s function. The situation presented here differs substantially from those involved in the cases relied on by defendant, such as Mahorney v. Wattman, 917 F. 2d 469 (10th Cir.1990); Eberhardt v. State, 550 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), review denied, 560 So. 2d 234 (Fla.1990); and Rosso v. State, 505 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Assuming arguendo that the objection should have been sustained, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Lee, 531 So. 2d 133, 137 (Fla.1988); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
Affirmed.
*
[PROSECUTOR]: All the evidence that I told you you would see has been seen. We delivered. We have met our burden of proof.
You are going to hear a lot about reasonable doubt. We have to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt. But ladies and gentlemen, let's really get down to it. You are not here to find doubt. You are here to find the truth, and there has been a lot of smoke screens.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Judge, I'm going to object to that comment. It is totally inappropriate.
[THE COURT]: Overruled.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rose v. State, 985 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 2008)…tes Rose’s characterization of the comment and demonstrates a lack of prejudice. The proper method in reviewing the effect, and therefore the prejudice, of the prosecutor’s comment in Rose’s case is to place the comment in context. See Ham v. State, 580 So. 2d 868, 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); compare Walls v. State, 926 So. 2d 1156, 1167 (Fla.2006) (holding that even if counsel’s performance was deficient, defendant failed to establish prejudice from one comment), and Holland v. State, 916 So. 2d 750, 758-59 (Fla…
-
Brown v. State, 733 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ony. Under these circumstances appellant’s position should not have been so ridiculed by the state. Miller v. State, 712 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Belittling a defense by the use of the term “smoke screen” may not always be error, Ham v. State, 580 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), but it was inappropriate in this case. Reversed and remanded for a new trial. TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. . New York Times, Apr. 21, 1999, Apr. 30, 1999, May 1, 1999. See also Angela J. Davis, [*1131] Race, Cops, and Traf…
-
Scala v. State, 213 So. 3d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…s "cheap tricks” was beyond bounds of proper closing argument); Waters v. State, 486 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (holding repeated references to defense’s closing argument as “misleading” and "a smoke screen” were improper). But see Ham v. State, 580 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (holding that, when read in full context, "smoke screen” comment by prosecutor was not a denigration of the defense, and, even assuming it was improper, was harmless error.)…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- State v. LEE, 531 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1988)
- Kinchen v. State, 531 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1988)
- Kennedy Eberhardt v. State, 550 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Rosso v. State, 505 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Mahorney v. Wallman, 917 F.2d 469 (10th Cir. 1990)