XZAVIUS EDWARDS, 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.
The court held that a prosecutor's questionable final argument was not grounds for reversal because it was not properly preserved for appeal and was not serious enough to warrant a mistrial.
[1] A prosecutor's argument in closing that a defendant may have tailored their statement to trial testimony, after the defendant's prior statement was excluded as self-servi…
[2] A prosecutor's argument in closing that a defendant may have tailored their statement to trial testimony is not grounds for reversal if the comment was not so serious as…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 and aggravated assault. During closing arguments, the prosecutor made a comment that the defendant may have tai…
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 Substantial Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
We find no reversible error in any of the points raised on this appeal from convictions of assault and aggravated assault, as lesser included offenses of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer with a firearm and attempted first degree murder, respectively.
While a portion of the prosecutor’s final argument may have been questionable under the “gotcha” theory stated in Garcia v. State, 564 So.2d 124 (Fla.1990), Romero v. State, 901 So.2d 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), and Hernandez v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 695 So.2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997),1 we hold both that (1) because this argument was not raised in support of his motion for mistrial, it may not be successfully pursued on appeal,2 see Craig v. State, 510 So.2d 857, 864 (Fla.1987), and (2) the comment was in any case not so serious as to require granting a mistrial below, or a new trial here. See Williams v. State, 744 So.2d 1103, 1107-08 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“ ‘[Otherwise proper trials are not to be reversed merely because an ... analysis of a single statement reveals a defect in rhetoric. When, as in this case, it clearly appears that the defendant’s substantial rights were not affected, it is our duty to affirm. We do.’ ”) (quoting Henry v. State, 290 So.2d 73, 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)), review denied, 753 So.2d 567 (Fla.2000).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Craig v. State, 510 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1987)
- Liborio Romero v. State, 901 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Garcia v. State, 564 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1990)
- Hernandez v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 695 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Fla. Farm Bureau Ins. Cos. v. Robert M. Salisbury et ux., 290 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Williams v. State, 744 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)