BILLY WASHINGTON, JR., 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.
Billy Washington, Jr. appealed his manslaughter with firearm conviction, arguing the prosecutor committed misconduct by improperly shifting the burden of proof and alluding to personal knowledge of evidence. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that while some prosecutorial statements may have been improper, they were not objected to at trial and did not rise to the level of fundamental error.
The court affirmed the conviction, concluding that while some prosecutorial statements may have been improper, they were not so prejudicial as to constitute fundamental error. Absent a contemporaneous objection at trial, the appellant could only prevail if the statements constituted fundamental error, which requires showing the error "reach[es] down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error."
[1] Allegedly improper prosecutorial remarks cannot be appealed unless a contemporaneous objection is recorded, absent fundamental error.
[2] Fundamental error occurs when allegedly improper comments reach down into the validity of the trial itself such that a guilty verdict could not have been obtained without…
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 intelligence“[A]llegedly improper prosecutorial remarks cannot be appealed unless a contemporaneous objection is recorded. The exception to this general rule is the situation where the allegedly improper comments constitute fundamental error.”
Establishes the foundational rule that unobjected prosecutorial statements are only reviewable if they constitute fundamental error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBilly Washington, Jr. was convicted of manslaughter with a firearm. During trial, the prosecutor made statements that Washington alleged improperly sh…
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 Contemporaneous Objection Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, J.
Billy Washington, Jr. appeals his conviction for manslaughter with a firearm. Mr. Washington argues that his conviction should be reversed due to prosecutorial misconduct during his trial. Specifically, Mr. Washington alleges that the prosecutor improperly shifted the burden of proof to him, and alluded to personal knowledge of evidence relating to the case that would be unavailable to the jury. We conclude that while some of the statements made by the prosecutor were arguably improper, none were objected to by defense counsel, and none rise to the level of fundamental error. We, therefore, affirm.
“[A]llegedly improper prosecutorial remarks cannot be appealed unless a contemporaneous objection is recorded. The exception to this general rule is the situation where the allegedly improper comments constitute fundamental error.” Kilgore v. State, 688 So. 2d 895, 898 (Fla.1996) (citing Gibson v. State, 351 So. 2d 948, 950 (Fla.1977)). Since Mr. Washington’s counsel1 did not object to the statements at issue, he can succeed only if the statements constituted fundamental error. Error is fundamental when it “reach[es] down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.” State v. Delva, 575 So. 2d 643, 644-45 (Fla.1991) (quoting Brown v. State, 124 So. 2d 481, 484 (Fla.1960)). This Court has held that “[w]hen the prejudicial conduct in this collective import is so extensive that its influence pervades the trial, gravely impairing a calm and dispassionate consideration of the evidence and merits of the jury, fundamental error can override the failure of defense counsel to make timely objections.” Sempier v. State, 907 So. 2d 1277, 1279 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the prosecutor’s arguments, to the extent they may have been improper, were not so prejudicial as to constitute fundamental error. Accordingly, Mr. Washington’s conviction is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA and LAWSON, JJ„ concur. . Appellate counsel did not serve as Mr. Washington’s trial counsel.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Washington v. State, 113 So. 3d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…anslaughter with a firearm. Washington appealed his conviction to this Court arguing that he was entitled to reversal because of improper prosecutorial argument amounting to fundamental error. This Court affirmed his conviction. Washington v. State, 935 So. 2d 1256, 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Washington subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief asserting six grounds. The lower court granted an evi-dentiary hearing on only three of these grounds. After the hearing, the court denied his motion for po…
Authorities Cited
- Ike Brown v. State, 124 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1960)
- D'Angelo v. State, 575 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1991)
- State v. Batraville Vincent Delva, 575 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1991)
- Kilgore v. State, 688 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1996)
- Gibson v. State, 351 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1977)
- Sempier v. State, 907 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)