MAXIE SMITH, 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 failing to sustain an objection to a peremptory juror strike and did not err in failing to grant a mistrial or give a curative instruction for improper prosecutorial remarks.
[1] A peremptory strike of a prospective juror is permissible when the proponent provides a race-neutral reason demonstrating a reasonable belief that the juror's voir dire a…
[2] Improper prosecutorial remarks during closing arguments may be deemed harmless error when there is overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant challenged his convictions and sentences, arguing the trial court erred in a peremptory juror strike and in failing to grant a mistrial or g…
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 Harmless Error Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant, Maxie Smith, challenges his convictions and sentences for burglary of a dwelling, battery on a law enforcement officer, and obstructing an officer with violence. In support of his challenge, appellant raises two issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in failing to sustain appellant’s objection to a peremptory juror strike; and (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial or give a curative instruction following the prosecutor’s improper remarks. We find no reversible error with either issue raised and affirm.
During jury selection, appellant objected to the State’s peremptory strike of a juror of Hispanic descent and asked for a race-neutral reason. In his response, the assistant state attorney adequately demonstrated his reasonable belief that the prospective juror’s answers to voir dire questions demonstrated a bias that appeared to be favorable to appellant.
Appellant also moved for a mistrial in regard to the assistant state attorney’s closing argument remarks that were clearly directed at improperly bolstering the credibility of a police officer. While we agree that the remarks were improper, we conclude that the remarks were harmless in face of the overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt. We take this opportunity to again admonish counsel, not only in criminal cases, but in civil cases as well, that our study of trial records repeatedly reveals the improper behavior of trial counsel that is harmful to the integrity of our judicial system. While we continue to apply the harmless error rule, counsel should not use that rule as a shield for behavior that counsel should know is clearly improper. The legal profession was once viewed as a noble calling. If that nobility has been tarnished, we as a pro fession must first blame ourselves. While the profession requires dedication to clients and a high standard of advocacy, it should never countenance a “win at any cost” attitude among members of the Bar. Affirrrip^
FULMER and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.