TANYA T. MATTHEWS, 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 prosecutor's comments during closing argument were not improper and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
[1] A trial court's control of closing argument comments is within its discretion, and an appellate court will not interfere unless an abuse of discretion is shown.
[2] Attorneys are afforded a degree of latitude in closing arguments, allowing them to draw logical inferences and advance all legitimate arguments.
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 intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of assault. During closing argument, the prosecutor made comments that the defendant argued were prejudicial.…
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 Standard Of Review On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, J.
Matthews, convicted of assault, appeals on the ground that the prosecutor made prejudicial comments during closing argument. We affirm.
At trial, both Matthews and her sister testified. During closing argument, the prosecutor said the following:
Now, let’s look at what the defense witnesses said.
And one of things you do, you’re gonna do is weigh the evidence and the judge will give you an instruction on weighing the evidence.
It is up to you to determine what evidence is reliable, what evidence you want to believe and what evidence you want to discard. It’s completely up to you.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you believe the defendant’s version and you believe the defendant’s sister, find her not guilty. Find her not guilty.
If her version is logical, rational and makes sense in light of all the evidence, what you heard in court, find her not guilty.
The state would submit that that’s not logical.
That the evidence in this case, that all the evidence begs for a guilty verdict.
The control of comments is within the trial court’s discretion, and an appellate court will not interfere unless an abuse of such discretion is shown. Jackson v. State, 832 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Attorneys have a degree of latitude in fashioning closing argument. Logical inferences may be drawn and counsel is allowed to advance all legitimate arguments. Thomas v. State, 748 So. 2d 970, 984 (Fla.1999).
Here, the prosecutor’s comments were not improper. The prosecutor merely submitted to the jury a conclusion that could arguably be drawn from the evidence. According to the prosecutor, there were two different versions of what happened: one version supported by the evidence and a second version put forth by Matthews. The prosecutor essentially argued that Matthews’ version was not supported by the evidence and that the version supported by the evidence warranted a conviction. This was a fair comment and the trial court did not err in overruling Matthews’ objection.
SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ragland v. Florida Attorney General (Lee County) (M.D. Fla. 2019)…and 660-665 of the trial transcript, attached hereto. Furthermore, attorneys have a degree of latitude in fashioning closing arguments and can advance all legitimate arguments that can be inferred from the evidence. Matthews v. State, 834 So. 2d 900, 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Therefore, counsel could not have been ineffective for failing to object or to raise a meritless issue. Schoenwetter, at 546. Ex. 9, Vol. I at 658-59). The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed per curium.…
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. State, 748 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1999)
- Izel Jackson v. State, 832 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)