WALTER EUGENE CAIN, 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.
Walter Eugene Cain appeals his convictions for obstruction of a law enforcement officer with violence, battery on law enforcement officers, and drug possession. He challenges the prosecutor's closing arguments and the constitutionality of the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act sentencing. The appellate court affirms his convictions and sentences.
The court held that the prosecutor's closing arguments were not improper as they were based on trial evidence, and even if improper, they did not constitute fundamental error. Additionally, the court found the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act constitutional.
[1] Improper prosecutorial comments are not subject to appellate review unless preserved by objection, or unless they constitute fundamental error.
[2] Prosecutorial comments based upon facts adduced at trial are not improper.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“This court has no power to review improper prosecutorial comments if they are not preserved by objection unless they constitute fundamental error.”
Establishes the standard for review of allegedly improper prosecutorial comments and the requirement of preservation through objection.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCain was convicted of obstruction of a law enforcement officer with violence, two counts of battery on a law enforcement officer, possession of cocain…
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 Prosecutorial Comment cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, J.
Walter Eugene Cain appeals his convictions for obstruction of a law enforcement officer with violence, two counts of battery on a law enforcement officer, possession of cocaine and possession of not more than 20 grams of cannabis. He raises two arguments on appeal: the prosecutor made improper closing arguments, and the trial court erred when it sentenced him pursuant to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act.1 Cain contends the Act is unconstitutional. We affirm.
First, the comments of the prosecutor were not improper; rather they were based upon the facts adduced at trial. Evén if we consider them improper, only one objection was made, and that was to the prosecutor’s accurate quotation of a standard jury instruction. Furthermore, Cain did not preserve any other of the prosecutor’s comments for appellate review. This court has no power to review improper prosecutorial comments if they are not preserved by objection unless they constitute fundamental error. Chandler v. State, 702 So. 2d 186 (Fla.1997); Street v. State, 636 So. 2d 1297 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1086, 115 S.Ct. 743, 130 L.Ed.2d 644 (1995). Here, even if some of the comments were improper, they did not constitute fundamental error. Cf. Ruiz v. State, 743 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1999) (holding that justice required the reversal of a conviction because “the present record shows that this trial was permeated by egregious and inexcusable prosecutorial misconduct”). The record here is devoid of such conduct.
As to the second issue, we have found the statute constitutional. See Speed v. State, 732 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. granted, 743 So. 2d 15 (Fla.1999). However, we certify conflict with State v. Wise, 744 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. granted, 741 So. 2d 1137 (Fla.1999), and State v. Cotton, 728 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), rev. granted, 737 So. 2d 551 (Fla.1999).
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge, concurs.
GRIFFIN, J., dissents, with opinion.
. § 775.082(9), Fla. Stat. (1998).
GRIFFIN, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because the prosecutorial misconduct in the closing argument in this case appears to be at least as bad as that in Henry v. State, 743 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). To me fairness requires consistency.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Oba Chandler v. State, 702 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1997)
- Ruiz v. State, 743 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1999)
- Speed v. State, 732 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- State v. Wise, 744 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Jewell F. Raimondo v. Am. United Life Ins. Co., 728 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- State v. Cotton, 728 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Street v. State, 636 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 1994)
- Henry v. State, 743 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Galaviz-Medina v. Wooten, 513 U.S. 1086 (U.S. 1995)
- Lackey v. Scott, 513 U.S. 1086 (U.S. 1995)