REGINALD BERNARD BELL, 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.
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling the defense's objection to the prosecutor's closing argument, which improperly bolstered the credibility of police officers.
[1] A prosecutor improperly bolsters police officer testimony by arguing that the officers would not risk their careers by testifying falsely.
[2] A prosecutor's improper bolstering of police testimony is not harmless error when the case hinges on a credibility contest between the accuser and the accused.
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 intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of selling cocaine near a place of worship, with the State's case relying on an undercover officer's identification. Durin…
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 Improper Bolstering Of Witness Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, Reginald Bell, appeals his conviction and sentence for sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a place of worship. The defendant allegedly sold drugs to an undercover officer out of his home. The defendant presented the testimony of his girlfriend who stated she was with him on the night of the crime. During closing argument, in discussing the different witnesses’ testimonies, the State argued:
Is it worth it, is it worth it for these two cops who have been with the force for over twelve years to fabricate and falsify police reports, arrest someone that they felt like arresting, and then come in here after taking an oath, lie in a Court of law to the jury panel—
Defense counsel immediately objected, claiming the argument was improper bolstering of the police officer’s testimony.1 We agree that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling the objection. The statement clearly asks the jury “is it worth it” for officers on the force to sacrifice their careers to falsely testify — a practice condemned by this court. See Davis v. State, 663 So.2d 1379, 1382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“The credibility of police officer witnesses cannot be bolstered by arguing that they would put their careers in jeopardy by lying.”); Clark v. State, 632 So.2d 88, 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (noting that it is improper for a prosecutor to attempt to persuade the jury that police officers would not testify falsely because they have too much at stake and would not risk then-jobs), overruled, on other grounds, T.B. v. State, 669 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Here, the State cannot show the evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because this case came down to a swearing match as the officer’s testimony was the only evidence linking the defendant to the crime. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
DAMOORGIAN and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Gentile-Youd v. In re Guardianship OF Harriet Rudnick, 632 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- T.B. v. State, 669 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Davis v. State, 663 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)