RONALD EDWARD BIRREN, 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 improper prosecutorial comments during closing argument, which were not cured by an instruction, constituted reversible error.
[1] Prosecutorial closing arguments that accuse a defendant of uncharged crimes or appeal to community sensibilities and civic conscience are improper.
[2] Improper prosecutorial comments during closing argument that are not cured by a jury instruction constitute reversible error.
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 intelligenceDuring closing arguments, the prosecutor accused the defendant of stealing state resources and unfairly competing with other fishermen. The trial cour…
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 Improper Closing Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
FLETCHER, Judge.
Ronald E. Birren seeks to set aside his conviction and sentence. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Birren was charged with (1) tampering with evidence1; (2) fleeing and eluding a Marine Patrol officer; (3) interference with a Marine Patrol officer; (4) possession of undersize lobster; (5) possession of lobster out of season; (6) harvesting lobster during the “soak” season; and (7) fading to have lobster registration numbers on his traps. At trial, the prosecutor made several remarks during closing argument accusing Birren of stealing resources from the state and other fishermen.2 The trial court permitted the statements over defense objection, denying Birren’s motion for mistrial. The jury ultimately returned a verdict of guilty on counts 2-7. At the hearing on Birren’s Motion for New Trial, the court revisited its earlier trial ruling that allowed the State’s comments. The trial judge explained that, while she believed in retrospect that the prosecutor’s comments were improper and a curative instruction should have been given to the jury, she did not believe that the comments warranted a mistrial. We disagree.
The prosecutor’s arguments were clearly improper. By accusing the defendant of the uncharged crime of stealing, the prosecutor “encroached on the jury’s job by improperly weighing in with her own opinion of the credibility of the witness.” Gomez v. State, 751 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has instructed that,
“[t]he proper exercise of closing argument is to review the evidence and to explicate those inferences which may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. Conversely, it must not be used to inflame the minds and passions of the jurors so that their verdict reflects an emotional response to the crime or the defendant rather than the logical analysis of the evidence in light of the applicable law.”
Bertolotti v. State, 476 So. 2d 130 (Fla.1985). Furthermore, the prosecutor’s comments fashioning herself as a representative of the community, and suggesting to the jury that they consider the unfairness to other “legal” crawfishermen, were out of line. Argument appealing to community sensibilities and civic conscience has repeatedly been held improper. See, e.g., Del Rio v. State, 732 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (citations omitted); S.H. Investment and Development Corp. v. Kincaid, 495 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Although the arguments made in the cited cases were more egregious than those made here, nevertheless,
“Such argument is an improper distraction from the jury’s sworn duty to reach a fair, honest and just verdict according to the facts and evidence presented at trial.... Our condemnation of a ‘community conscience’ argument is not limited to the use of those specific words; it extends to all impassioned and prejudi cial pleas intended to evoke a sense of community law through common duty and expectation. Such appeals serve no proper purpose and carry the potential of substantial injustice-”
Westbrook v. General Tire and Rubber Co., 754 F. 2d 1233 (5th Cir.1985).
The trial judge subsequently acknowledged the impropriety of the prosecutor’s comments, and admittedly failed to give a curative instruction upon Birren’s objection. In the absence of such curative instruction those comments, and their possible effect on the jury, were not harmless error. Compare Del Rio, 732 So. 2d at 1102 (inappropriate comments strayed dangerously close to requiring new trial but for curative instructions to jury both before and after closing arguments).
For these reasons, we reverse Birren’s judgment of conviction and remand for a new trial.
. The trial court granted Birren’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal for the tampering charge.
. For example, the record shows that the prosecutor argued to the jury that Birren was
“out there hunting a baited field. All of the other crawfishermen who are legal — ,” R.414
“He was stealing from every other person that was trying to abide by the rules.,” R.415
"He was stealing from every other person that was trying to play by the rules.,” R.415 “He was stealing from Tom Cop-pedge. ...," R.416
“I want you to say to Mr. Birren that he is not allowed to violate these rules, that other people have to abide by these laws and he has to, too ... It's not fair and it’s not right and it’s not legal for him to go out there and put traps in the water and fish ... and no one else is allowed to. He’s stealing, plain and simple.” R.424
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Augustin Fleurimond v. State, 10 So. 3d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…nsistently have condemned impassioned arguments which appeal to the jury’s community sensibilities or civil conscience. Smith v. State, 818 So. 2d 707, 710 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Otero v. State, 754 So. 2d 765, 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Birren v. State, 750 So. 2d 168, 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). As such, this appeal to the jurors by the prosecutor was error. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial based on the cumulative effect of the improper closing arguments. However, the trial court denied the motion. A trial cour…
-
Rubin Otero v. State, 754 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…sibly appeal to the jury’s “community conscience” or sense of “civic responsibility.” ... We are disturbed by the prosecutor’s apparent failure to heed these warnings. Del Rio v. State, 732 So. 2d 1100, 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). See Birren v. State, 750 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (citations omitted). I would affirm if the objection had been sustained and a curative instruction given. But in this case, the error was compounded by the trial court’s overruling the defense objection to the argument, thus reinf…
-
Talley v. State, 260 So. 3d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bertolotti v. State, 476 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 1985)
- Westbrook v. Gen. Tire & Rubber Co., 754 F.2d 1233 (5th Cir. 1985)
- S.H. Inv. & Dev. Corp. v. Dorsey Kincaid and Bernice Kincaid, 495 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Norberto DEL RIO v. State, 732 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Gomez v. State, 751 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)