GIBSON PAUL, 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.
Gibson Paul appeals his convictions for firearm-related offenses, arguing the prosecutor improperly shifted the burden of proof during closing argument. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the prosecutor's statement that the defense needed to prove the prosecution's witness was lying constituted reversible error that curative jury instructions failed to remedy.
The prosecutor's comment improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant by insinuating he needed to prove the prosecution's witness was lying. The error was reversible because the sole evidence against Paul came from Laboy's testimony, and the trial court's curative instructions were insufficient to cure the prejudicial effect of the burden-shifting comment.
[1] A prosecutor's comment during closing argument that improperly shifts the burden of proof to the defendant constitutes reversible error.
[2] A prosecutor may not mislead the jury regarding the State's burden of proof.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“When arguing to the jury, the State may not make comments that mislead the jury as to the burden of proof.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard governing prosecutor conduct in closing argument regarding burden of proof
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGibson Paul was charged with felon in possession of a firearm, improper exhibition of a firearm, and discharging a firearm in public. At trial, the pr…
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 Discharging A Firearm In Public cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1283] DAMOORGIAN, J.
Gibson Paul appeals his convictions and sentence for (1) felon in possession of a firearm, (2) improper exhibition of a firearm, and (3) discharging a firearm in public. Paul asserts that the trial court erred in allowing an impermissible comment by the prosecutor during closing argument.
We reverse and remand for a new trial because the prosecutor made a comment that improperly shifted the burden of proof, and the curative instructions given following the comment were not sufficient to cure the error.
At trial, the prosecutor presented the testimony of one witness, Mr. Laboy, as proof that Paul was guilty of the crimes charged. During closing, the prosecutor stated that “[t]he State has the burden of proving all of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. And if [the defense attorney] wants to present theories of how she believes this case should play out, there’s got to be some level of proof from that Mr. Laboy was lying.” Following the comment, Paul objected.
The trial court overruled the objection and explained: “It’s a comment on the evidence, or should I say, while the State always has the burden of proof, both lawyers have a right to comment on their perception of the evidence and as I told you before you’re free to accept it, or reject it.”
When arguing to the jury, the State may not make comments that mislead the jury as to the burden of proof. See Jackson v. State, 575 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1991); Shelton v. State, 654 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
The prosecutor’s comment improperly shifted the burden to the defendant because it insinuated that the defendant needed to prove that the prosecutor’s witness was lying in order to be found not guilty. See Atkins v. State, 878 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (state improperly shifted the burden of proof when it implied that the defendant needed to prove that the victim was lying in order to receive acquittal); Northard v. State, 675 So. 2d 652, 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (prosecutor’s argument was impermissible because it asked the jury to determine who was lying as the proper test of determining guilt).
Moreover, the prosecutor’s comment was not harmless because the sole evidence against the defendant was presented by Mr. Laboy. See Atkins, 878 So. 2d 460 (comment about the defendant’s failure to show victim was lying was not harmless where the sole evidence against the defendant was the victim’s identification).
Consequently, the comment made by the prosecutor resulted in reversible error. Lastly, the instructions given by the trial court following the objection did not sufficiently erase the confusion created by the burden shifting comment. See Schoenwetter v. State, 931 So. 2d 857, 872 (Fla.2006) (finding curative instruction to be sufficient where the defense objected, the trial court sustained the objection, the prosecutor admitted the mistake and the jury indicated that it understood the curative instruction). Despite generally stating that the State has the burden of proof, the trial court failed to specifically rebuff the State’s comment that Paul had the burden to show Laboy was lying.
Moreover, the trial court appeared to consent to the accuracy of the prosecutor’s comment when it overruled the objection and stated to the jury that the State is allowed to comment on the evidence.
Thus, the instructions did not eliminate the confusion caused the prosecutor’s comment.
Reversed and Remanded.
SHAHOOD, C.J. and HAZOURI, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jennings v. State, 124 So. 3d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…ent to cure the prejudice. See Adams v. State, 830 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (reversing conviction where prosecutor’s personal attacks on defense counsel in closing argument was not remedied by trial court’s curative instruction); Paul v. State, 980 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (reversing conviction where trial court’s curative instruction to State’s improper closing argument was insufficient to remedy prejudice); Johns v. State, 832 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (same). Given that the curative instruct…
-
Saunders v. Willis Dickens, M.D., 103 So. 3d 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…jury and all logical deductions from the facts and evidence.” Knoizen v. Bruegger, 713 So. 2d 1071, 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). When arguing to the jury, a party may not make comments that mislead the jury as to the burden of proof. Cf. Paul v. State, 980 So. 2d 1282, 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). It is also improper for counsel to misstate the law during closing argument. See City Provisioners, Inc. v. Anderson, 578 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (misstatement of Florida law on remittitur and additur constituted im…
-
Mitchell v. State, 118 So. 3d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…atements that shift the burden of proof and invite the jury to convict the defendant for some reason other than that the State has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Gore v. State, 719 So. 2d 1197, 1200 (Fla.1998); see, e.g., Paul v. State, 980 So. 2d 1282, 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“The prosecutor’s comment improperly shifted the burden to the defendant because it insinuated that the defendant needed to prove that the prosecutor’s witness was lying in order to be found not guilty.”); Atkins v. State,…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jackson v. State, 575 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1991)
- Schoenwetter v. State, 931 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 2006)
- Shelton v. State, 654 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Northard v. State, 675 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Ozzie Atkins v. State, 878 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)