PEDRO LUIS LOPEZ AND JORGE LUIS GUEDES, APPELLANTS,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Austin v. State, 700 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
  …35 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). We note that the defense was not denying Appellant’s presence or that the communication had occurred. Neither do we interpret the state’s comments as misleading the jury as to the burden of proof. Vazquez v. State, 635 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The state has a right, and even a duty, to respond to the defense’s suggestion. To ignore it gives it credence. Under the circumstances, the prosecutor’s comment was not improperly stated. The prosecutor made no mention of either…
• Johnson v. State, 917 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
  …esponse as permissible comments on the evidence and a fair reply tailored to respond to the defense’s closing argument. See Stancle v. State, 854 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Mitchell v. State, 771 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Vazquez v. State, 635 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). It is well established that counsel is afforded wide latitude in making arguments to the jury, especially in response to opposing counsel’s improper comments. Schwarck v. State, 568 So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Viewed in cont…
• Jackson v. State, 703 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
  …a. 4th DCA 1988). Additionally, we disagree with Jackson’s claim that certain comments by the prosecutor, regarding the truthfulness of the victim’s testimony, made during closing argument were improper. Following our decision in Vazquez v. State, 635 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), the comments were not improper as they were merely made in response to the defendant’s attack on the victim’s credibility and, in any case, the juiy was properly instructed by the trial court regarding the State’s burden of proof…

Authorities Cited

• Rodriguez v. State, 558 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)