WILLIE J. COVINGTON, 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.
Willie Covington was convicted of grand theft for shoplifting groceries from Publix, but the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial due to improper prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. The prosecutor improperly shifted the burden of proof to Covington by suggesting he could have obtained a surveillance video that Publix had recorded over, when the state had not even disclosed the video's existence during discovery.
The prosecutor's closing argument was improper for two reasons: it was factually inaccurate because Covington was not aware of the surveillance video during the time it could have been obtained, and it improperly shifted the burden of proof to Covington by suggesting he should have produced evidence to refute the state's case, which violates the principle that the state cannot comment on a defendant's failure to produce evidence.
[1] A prosecutor's closing argument is improper when it is factually inaccurate regarding the availability of evidence.
[2] A prosecutor's closing argument is improper when it shifts the burden of proof to the defendant by commenting on the defendant's failure to produce evidence.
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 intelligence“the state cannot comment on a defendant's failure to produce evidence to refute an element of the crime, because doing so could erroneously lead the jury to believe the defendant carried the burden of introducing evidence.”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle violated by the prosecutor's 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 intelligenceOn March 13, 2009, Willie Covington was charged with grand theft for shoplifting groceries from Publix. A surveillance video of the theft existed but …
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 Best Evidence Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
In an incident that occurred on March 13, 2009, Willie Covington was charged with grand theft arising from shoplifting of groceries from Publix. There was a surveillance video of the theft, but it was not introduced at trial because Publix recorded over it in May, 2009. During closing argument, Covington contended that the absence of the video was a lack of evidence creating a reasonable doubt. During the state’s closing argument, the prosecutor responded to this contention by stating:
And then a huge part about this video. Gosh, video that existed, it was a surveillance, State didn’t show it to you. Well, you know what? They could have got it too. They could have shown it to you. They had just as much of an opportunity to go and ask for that video as we did.
The prosecutor’s closing argument was improper for two reasons. First, it was factually inaccurate. Covington was arrested on March 13, 2009 and sought discovery in March. The state filed an information on April 7 and did not disclose the existence of any surveillance evidence until September, 2009. Thus, it does not appear that appellant was aware of the surveillance video during the 60 day period when it might have been obtained from Publix. Second, the argument improperly shifted the burden of proof to Covington. “[T]he state cannot comment on a defendant’s failure to produce evidence to refute an element of the crime, because doing so could erroneously lead the jury to believe the defendant carried the burden of introducing evidence.”1 Hayes v. State, 660 So.2d 257, 265 (Fla.1995) (quoting Jackson v. State, 575 So.2d 181, 188 (Fla.1991)). The prosecutor compounded the error by implying that video would have corroborad ed the state’s case had it been shown. See Williams v. State, 548 So.2d 898, 899-900 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
We have reviewed the entire record and do not find the error to be harmless. On another matter, because the matter was not preserved by a specific objection, we do not reach the best evidence rule issue. See §§ 90.951-90.954, Fla. Stat. (2009).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
POLEN and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jackson v. State, 575 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1991)
- Hayes v. State, 660 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1995)
- Lawyer v. State, 627 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Marullo v. State, 548 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)