ALBERTO LAZARO PINO, 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.
Prosecutor's statements calling the defendant a liar during closing argument are not improper if supported by the record.
The defendant was convicted of vehicular homicide. During closing arguments, the prosecutor repeatedly called the defendant a liar. The defendant appe…
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 Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Alberto Lazaro Pino, appeals from his conviction for vehicular homicide. We affirm.
During closing argument, the prosecutor stated that the defendant was a “liar,” that the defendant had told “lies,” and that the defendant had “lied.” The defendant contends that these arguments were improper. We disagree. In Murphy v. International Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010, 1028-29 (Fla.2000), the Florida Supreme Court held:
it is not improper for counsel to state during closing argument that a witness “lied” or is a “liar,” provided such characterizations are supported by the record. If the evidence supports such a characterization, counsel is not imper-missibly stating a personal opinion about the credibility of a witness, but is instead submitting to the jury a conclusion that reasonably may be drawn from the evidence.
(citations and footnote omitted). After carefully reviewing the record, we find that prosecutor’s characterizations of the defendant are supported by the record.
The remaining contention raised by the defendant lacks merit. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reid v. State, 799 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…y and that the State improperly argued facts not in evidence. The State’s closing remarks were supported by the record, made in fair response to the comments made by appellant’s counsel during trial, or constituted harmless error. See Pino v. State, 776 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Jackson v. State, 703 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); see also Reyes v. State, 700 So. 2d 458, 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Craig v. State, 510 So. 2d 857 (Fla.1987). In his fourth point, appellant contends that the guilty verdicts o…
-
Hope v. State, 805 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…powers, and cruel and/or unusual punishment. We affirm on the authority of Hall v. State, 767 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), review granted, 790 So. 2d 1104 (Fla.2001); Peterson v. State, 775 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); see also Bush v. State, 776 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). AFFIRMED. POLEN, C.J., and KLEIN, J., concur.…
-
Harris v. State, 810 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Bush v. State, 776 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Hall v. State, 767 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), rev. granted, 790 So. 2d 1104 (Fla.2001); Peterson v. State, 775 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). STEVENSON, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
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
- Murphy v. Int'l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2000)