ANTONIO PEREZ, 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 affirmed defendant's conviction for unlawful firearm possession by a convicted felon, holding that identification was proper, prosecutorial comment did not violate the defendant's right against self-incrimination, and the reasonable doubt instruction was adequate.
The conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon was properly supported by identification evidence, the prosecutor's comment did not constitute an improper indirect reference to the defendant's failure to testify, and the reasonable doubt jury instruction was adequate.
[1] A defendant may be properly identified in court as the person observed by police in possession of a firearm when the defendant is a convicted felon, and such identificati…
[2] A prosecutor's comment in final argument that responds to defense counsel's argument does not constitute an improper indirect comment on the defendant's failure to testif…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Perez, a convicted felon, was observed by police in possession of a firearm and was identified in court as the person observed.…
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 Convicted Felon cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment of conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon [§ 790.23(1), Fla.Stat. (1991) ] under review is affirmed upon a holding that (1) the defendant was properly identified in court as the person observed by police in possession of a firearm, when such defendant was a convicted felon, see United States v. Kleinschmidt, 596 F. 2d 133, 136 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 927, 100 S.Ct. 267, 62 L.Ed.2d 184 (1979); Ivester v. State, 398 So. 2d 926, 928-29 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So. 2d 470 (Fla.1982); (2) the comment made by the prosecuting attorney in final argument to the jury constituted, in context, a comment on defense counsel’s final argument and was not “fairly susceptible” of being interpreted by the jury as an indirect comment on the defendant’s failure to testify at trial, State v. Kinchen, 490 So. 2d 21 (Fla.1985), but, in any event, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that this comment, if improper, did not contribute to the jury verdict of guilt, State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986); and (3) no fundamental error is shown by the trial court’s unobjected-to reasonable doubt jury instruction. Cf. Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S.-, - --,114 S.Ct. 1239, 1250-51, 127 L.Ed.2d 583, 588-89 (1994).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- State v. Kinchen, 490 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1985)
- Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1994)
- Ivester v. State, 398 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- White Auto. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 444 U.S. 927 (U.S. 1979)
- Skoko v. Andrus, 444 U.S. 927 (U.S. 1979)
- United States v. Kleinschmidt, 596 F.2d 133 (5th Cir. 1979)