RAYMOND J. JORLETT, 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.
Raymond Jorlett appeals his DUI conviction, raising four points of error. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal finds merit in one claim—that the prosecutor improperly vouched for police officer credibility during closing argument—and reverses and remands for retrial because the error was not harmless.
The prosecutor's comments constituted improper vouching for the officer's credibility. Because the trial testimony was essentially a credibility contest between two individuals and defense counsel timely objected, the error was not harmless, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial.
[1] A prosecutor improperly vouches for the credibility of a police officer witness by stating the officer is a public servant sworn to protect and has taken an oath.
[2] A prosecutor's improper vouching for a police officer's credibility during closing argument is not harmless error when the testimony is essentially a swearing match betwe…
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 intelligence“Yeah [Deputy Sonnier] is one witness. She is one witness, but she is the only officer that was there. How else are we going to prove our case? She is the only person that was there. She is the only person who can tell you these things. She is our public servant. She is sworn to protect us. And she comes in here and she has taken an oath.”
The prosecutor's closing argument that constituted improper vouching for the officer's credibility
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJorlett was arrested and charged with DUI. At trial, the prosecution's case relied heavily on testimony from Deputy Sonnier, who was the only officer …
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 Bolstering cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, J.
Appellant, Raymond Jorlett [“Jorlett”] appeals from the judgment and sentence which were entered after a jury found him guilty of DUI. Jorlett raises four points of error: (1) that his motion to dismiss should have been granted based on the arresting officer’s failure to videotape him after he was taken into custody; (2) that the court erred in allowing the State to comment on his right to remain silent; (3) that the court erred in allowing the State, during closing argument, to bolster the credibility of a police officer witness; and (4) that certain special conditions of probation were not orally pronounced at sentencing. The third issue has merit and requires reversal.
Although the State disputes it, there is little doubt that the comments of the prosecutor constituted an improper vouching by the prosecutor for the credibility of the State’s police officer witness:
Yeah [Deputy Sonnier] is one witness. She is one witness, but she is the only officer that was there. How else are we going to prove our case? She is the only person that was there. She is the only person who can tell you these things. She is our public servant. She is sworn to protect us. And she comes in here and she has taken an oath....
This is not a fundamental error case. Defense counsel objected to this comment and the objection was overruled. It was error to overrule the objection. The only remaining question is whether the error was “harmless.” In other cases where such argument has appeared and, where, like this case, the testimony is essentially a swearing match between two individuals, the error has not been considered harmless. See, e.g., Freeman v. State, 717 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Cisneros v. State, 678 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
The supreme court has made clear that where prosecutors violate the judicial restrictions on the content of closing argument, such prosecutorial misconduct should be remedied. Here, defense counsel did his job by objecting and objecting very specifically. Ruiz v. State, 743 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1999). See also Henry v. State, 743 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). The case will have to be retried.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
THOMPSON, C.J., concurs.
KAHN, L., Associate Judge, dissents, with opinion.
KAHN, L., Associate Judge,
dissenting.
The prosecutor unquestionably tried to bolster the officer’s credibility by stating, “She is our public servant. She is stuom to protect us.” (Emphasis added).1 However, the prosecutor’s statements constituted harmless error. The comments were isolated, and they were not “so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial.” See State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955, 956 (Fla.1984), quoting Cobb v. State, 376 So. 2d 230, 232 (Fla.1979). The statements made by the prosecutor are akin to those made in Buckner v. State, 689 So. 2d 1202, 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). The appellate court in Buckner held that the prosecutor’s statements that the jury would find the police officer “very credible” and that he testified truthfully constituted improper bolstering but did not warrant a new trial when considered in the context of the entire proceeding. Id.
. All statements made by the prosecutor were either supported by the evidence or were based on logical inferences from the evidence. See Breedlove v. State, 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Austin v. State, 199 So. 3d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…tforward in answering the attorneys’ questions? 4. Did the witness have some interest in how the case should be decided? 5. Does the witness’s testimony agree with the other testimony and other evidence in the case? . See, e.g., Jorlett v. State, 766 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). . See, e.g., Valentine v. State, 98 So. 3d 44 (Fla.2012); Gorby v. State, 630 So. 2d 544 (Fla.1993). . Moreover, Austin did not contend below, or on appeal, that the witness was not qualified to render an expert opinion on thi…
-
Smith v. State, 818 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…, 456 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1984). It is equally improper for a prosecutor to vouch for the credibility of a police officer on the ground that he is a police officer. Johnson; Reyes v. State, 700 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). See also Jorlett v. State) 766 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (new trial required where prosecutor improperly vouched for credibility of the state’s police officer witness arguing to the jury that “[S]he is our public servant. She is sworn to protect us”). The comments in this case are dir…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1984)
- Ruiz v. State, 743 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1999)
- Coffman Realty, Inc. v. Tosohatchee Game Preserve, Inc., 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)
- McArthur Breedlove v. State, 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)
- Cobb v. State, 376 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 1979)
- Cisneros v. State, 678 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Freeman v. State, 717 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Henry v. State, 743 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Hawke Distrib., Inc. v. Nuevo SOL P'rs, Inc., 689 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Captain Buckner v. State, 689 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)