KEITH DONELL JACOBS, APPELLANT,
v.
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 trial court did not err in denying mistrial motions and imposing consecutive mandatory minimum penalties.
[1] A prosecutor may, in good faith, address a defense strategy in opening argument, even if it involves commenting on the potential credibility of defense witnesses.
[2] It is proper for a prosecutor to argue in closing that the state's case is uncontradicted by the defense.
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 intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of murder and attempted murder. During trial, the prosecutor made statements in opening and closing arguments that the def…
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 Distinct Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The appellant raises several points on appeal. First, it is contended the trial court should have declared a mistrial because the prosecutor, during opening statement, cautioned the jury to listen very carefully to the defense’s alibi witnesses because they had given inconsistent statements. The trial court instructed the jury to disregard any statements concerning an alibi, but denied a motion for mistrial. Ultimately, the defense presented no evidence.
In closing argument the prosecutor maintained that the defense had presented no evidence to contradict the state’s case, and again the defense unsuccessfully moved for a mistrial.
We find no error in the trial court’s denial of the mistrial motions. Where the defense has given notice that it will rely on a particular defense, it is not improper for the prosecution to address that defense, in good faith, in opening argument. Occhicone v. State, 570 So. 2d 902 (Fla.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2067, 114 L.Ed.2d 471 (1991); Romero v. State, 435 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), rev. denied, 447 So. 2d 888 (Fla.1984). Moreover, it is well established that it is proper for the prosecutor to point out in closing argument that the state’s case is uncontradicted. See White v. State, 377 So. 2d 1149 (Fla.1979). It is not improper to comment on the credibility of the defense in general as opposed to an individual defendant. State v. Sheperd, 479 So. 2d 106 (Fla.1985).
Jacobs also contends that it was error for the trial court to impose two consecutive mandatory minimum penalties for violation of section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1989). He relies on Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983). This argument is also without merit because the instant crime involved two separate victims and two separate and distinct offenses — murder and attempted murder. See State v. Thomas, 487 So. 2d 1043 (Fla.1986) and Kelly v. State, 552 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), rev. denied, 563 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1990).
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dywain A. Frederick v. State, 639 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…transaction and involve one victim, the three year mandatory minimum sentences may be imposed concurrently, but not consecutively. Daniels v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla.1992); Langley v. State, 614 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Cf. Jacobs v. State, 600 So. 2d 1199, 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (consecutive minimum mandatory sentences are appropriate where the crime involved two separate victims and two separate and distinct offenses); Kelly v. State, 552 So. 2d 206, 208 (Fla. 5th [*1048] DCA 1989), review denied,…
-
Swan v. State, 768 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…d. Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 96 S.Ct. 1612, 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976); White v. State, 377 So. 2d 1149 (Fla.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 845, 101 S.Ct. 129, 66 L.Ed.2d 54 (1980); State v. Mathis, 278 So. 2d 280 (Fla.1973); Jacobs v. State, 600 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); LeFleur v. State, 569 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).…
Authorities Cited
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- Occhicone v. State, 570 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1990)
- White v. State, 377 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1979)
- State v. Thomas, 487 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1986)
- Fidel Romero v. State, 435 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- State v. Sheperd, 479 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1985)
- Alphonse Kelly v. State, 552 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)