JERMAINE JOHNSON, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed defendant's conviction while admonishing the prosecutor for repeatedly arguing facts not in evidence during closing argument, conduct that, though not fundamental error, demonstrated disrespect for the court.
Although the prosecutor's improper closing argument does not constitute fundamental error warranting reversal, the court admonishes such conduct as demonstrating clear lack of respect for the court.
[1] Prosecutor's improper closing argument arguing facts not in evidence, though deserving of admonition, does not constitute fundamental error requiring reversal when the tr…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Trial attorneys must avoid improper argument if the system is to work properly. If attorneys do not recognize improper argument, they should not be in a courtroom. If trial attorneys recognize improper argument and persist in its use, they should not be members of The Florida Bar.”
Court's statement regarding the professional obligations of trial attorneys to avoid improper argument.
Jermaine Johnson was convicted after trial where the prosecutor, despite judicial warning, repeatedly argued facts not in evidence during closing argu…
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 Professional Responsibility Of Attorneys cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm. As in Bethea v. State, 911 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), we write only to comment on the improper conduct of the prosecutor in delivering his closing argument. Although the prosecutor’s remarks do not constitute fundamental error, they evince a clear lack of respect for the court, deserving of admonition. On more than one occasion, the prosecutor attempted to argue facts not in evidence. Although cautioned by the trial judge, he continued his course of conduct prompting the judge to threaten him with contempt: “Leave it alone, I’m warning you. Do not mess with me. I may have to find you in contempt of court. Leave it alone. Can you do that?”
Unfortunately, we find it necessary to once again reiterate what every officer of the court should recognize: “Trial attorneys must avoid improper argument if the system is to work properly. If attorneys do not recognize improper argument, they should not be in a courtroom. If trial attorneys recognize improper argument and persist in its use, they should not be members of The Florida Bar.” Luce v. State, 642 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (Blue, J., concurring specially). Finally, we suggest that this prosecutor view continuing legal education videotapes regarding the rules' of proper argument. See Bell v. State, 723 So. 2d 896, 897 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (Altenbernd, J., concurring). If he continues with the antics displayed in this case in future criminal trials, appropriate sanctions should be levied. Id. at 897.
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND, CASANUEVA, and KELLY, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Demitrius Bell v. State, 723 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Luce v. State, 642 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Jacques C. Bethea v. State, 911 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)