B. L. ROACH, ALIAS DICK ROACH, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Roach was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment, raising an insanity defense. On appeal, the Court addressed whether the prosecutor's closing argument improperly referenced the defendant's prior arrests and previous failure to raise an insanity defense, which would violate evidence rules and constitute reversible error.
While such a prosecutorial statement would violate the rule against 'res inter alios acts' evidence and would be highly prejudicial if made, the judgment is affirmed because the defendant did not timely object at trial, and the record lacks certification from the trial judge or prosecutor confirming the statement was made.
“In criminal cases, the prosecuting attorney occupies a semi-judicial position. He is a sworn officer of the State with no greater duty imposed on him than to preserve intact all the great sanctions and traditions of the law.”
Establishes the elevated ethical and legal obligations of prosecutors in criminal cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoach was tried and found guilty of armed robbery (hijacking liquor). He raised an insanity defense, which generated conflicting testimony at trial. A…
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 Prejudicial Remarks By Prosecutor cases and more on FLexlaw
Roach, the plaintiff in error, was tried and found guilty of the offense of armed robbery (hi-jacking of a load of liquor), and sentenced therefor to life imprison.ment. His defense was not guilty because of insanity. The testimony on that issue was in sharp conflict. Motion for new trial was made and denied. Exception to that ruling ,was taken and the case is now before us on writ of error.
The fifth ground of the motion for a new trial is that the ■Court erred in permitting the Assistant Prosecuting Attor*223ney in his closing argument to the jury to state that the defendant, B. L. Roach, within the last year, had been arrested and tried five or six times for various crimes, and had not heretofore filed and pleaded as a defense to any of said charges the defense of insanity.
If, as a matter of fact, the Assistant County Solicitor made the statement as alleged, there was no evidence at the trial to support such a statement. Nor would such supporting evidence have been proper had it been tendered, inasmuch as it would have been a clear violation of the evidentiary rule which prohibits proof of things that are considered "res inter alios acts.” Under the circumstances, a statement of the character attributed to the prosecuting officer, would amount in practical effect to the offering of independent testimony on his part, though in the form of an argument. Evidence so offered would be of a character contrary .to law, as well as highly prejudicial to the defendant. Had defendant promptly objected, and moved for a mistrial because of the harm done before an objection could have been earlier made, the motion should have been granted, since the nature of the harm done by highly prejudicial remarks of the kind complained of is not such as can be readily obviated in any other way than by declaring a mistrial if defendant insists on it.
In criminal cases, the prosecuting attorney occupies a semi-judicial position. He is a sworn officer of the State with no greater duty imposed on him than to preserve intact all the great sanctions and traditions of the law. It matters not how guilty a defendant in his opinion may be, .it is his duty under oath to see that no conviction takes place except in strict conformity to law. His private consideration should be above that of a mere attorney of record for the State, struggling for a conviction. The law should be enforced, but not in an unlawful manner or by *224unlawful means. Akin v. State, 86 Fla. 564, 98 Sou. Rep. 609; Washington v. State, 86 Fla. 533, 98 Sou. Rec. 604; Clinton v. State, 53 Fla. 98, 43 Sou. Rep. 312; Bradham v. State, 41 Fla. 541, 26 Sou. Rep. 730.
In this case the alleged happening complained of does not appear to have been noticed or objected to at the time it occurred. No certification or statement of the trial judge or of the prosecuting attorney is found in the record either to affirm or to negative the proofs of the defendant offered in the form of affidavits to support the motion for a new trial. Nor does the trial judge make any reference in the bill of exceptions concerning the nature of the happening charged, in explanation of it, or tending to show that any objection was made to him at the time seeking to cure by instructions or otherwise the error' that was committed when the remarks complained of were made.
Under the circumstances, a majority of the Court are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beneby v. State, 354 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…faithfully represent the state but to see that justice is done. His duty is twofold, and it cannot be said that he represents a great State only and should remain oblivious to the legal rights of the defendant.” Young then refers to Roach v. State, 108 Fla. 222, 146 So. 240 (1933). That bears reading, as well. We add that our society depends upon the protection of the individual by the government in order to preserve the very government in which all of us are the individuals. We add further there is absolu…
-
Young v. State, 142 Fla. 361 (Fla. 1939)…State but to see that justice is done. His duty is twofold, and it cannot be said that he represents a great State only and should remain oblivious to the legal rights of the defendant. This principle has been thoroughly discussed in Roach v. State, 108 Fla. 222, 146 South. Rep. 240, where the following was announced: “In criminal cases, the prosecuting attorney occupies a semi-judicial position. He is a sworn officer of the State with no greater duty imposed on him than to preserve intact all the great sa…
-
Young v. State, 141 Fla. 529 (Fla. 1939)…State hut to see that justice is done. His duty is twofold, and it cannot be said that he represents a great State only and should remain oblivious to the legal rights of the defendant. This principle has been thoroughly discussed in Roach v. State, 108 Fla. 222, 146 South. Rep. 240, where the following was announced : “In criminal cases, the prosecuting attorney occupies a semi-judicial position. He is a sworn officer of the State with no greater duty imposed on him than to preserve intact all the great s…
Authorities Cited
- Akin v. State, 86 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1923)
- Buck Clinton and Edward Clinton v. State, 53 Fla. 98 (Fla. 1907)
- Washington v. State, 86 Fla. 533 (Fla. 1923)
- Bradham v. State, 41 Fla. 541 (Fla. 1899)