JAMES RAMEY, 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.
James Ramey appeals his conviction for attempted robbery, arguing that the prosecution improperly bolstered the victim's testimony during closing argument. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding that the prosecutor's statement that the victim was honest constituted a permissible rebuttal to the defense's credibility attack rather than improper bolstering.
The prosecutor's statement that the victim was honest did not constitute improper bolstering because it was a direct and contextual response to the defense's argument that the victim was dishonest, and the trial court had instructed the jury that lawyer arguments are not evidence.
[1] Improper bolstering occurs when the State places the prestige of the government behind a witness or indicates that information not presented to the jury supports the witn…
[2] A prosecutor's statement that a witness was honest, when made in direct response to defense arguments that the witness was dishonest, does not constitute improper bolster…
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“Improper bolstering occurs when the State places the prestige of the government behind the witness or indicates that information not presented to the jury supports the witness's testimony.”
This establishes the legal standard for what constitutes improper bolstering of witness testimony.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRamey was charged with attempted robbery. The only trial witnesses were the victim and a police officer who encountered the victim fleeing from the de…
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 Impeachment By Prior Felony Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
James Ramey, the defendant, appeals his conviction of attempted robbery. The only witnesses who testified at trial were the victim and the police officer who encountered the victim as he was running away from the defendant. On appeal, the defendant argues that the State improperly bolstered the testimony of the victim. We affirm.
The bolstering argument is without merit. “Improper bolstering occurs when the State places the prestige of the government behind the witness or indicates that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.” Spann v. State, 985 So.2d 1059, 1067 (Fla.2008) (citations omitted). Here, the victim admitted on cross-examination that he had been convicted of two felonies. The defense used the evidence of the victim’s prior criminal record to attack the victim’s credibility:
*309And [the victim], yes, was very honest about his convictions because he doesn’t really have a choice. He’s been convicted twice, he’s on felony probation. What is [the victim] going to say when this undercover cop pulls up and says hey, what’s going on? Is he going to say oh, I sold him some acid two days ago or yesterday and it wasn’t any good, or I didn’t give it to him and he gave me ten dollars? Of course not. He’s not going to say that. That’s going to land him right back in federal lockup. Does he have a reason to stick to that story? Absolutely. If he says anything different now, he’s violating his federal probation. Does he have a reason to lie to you? I would say most certainly yes.
In rebuttal, the prosecutor responded that “[the victim] got on the stand, he was honest with you. He told you the terms of his probation. He does not have a motive to lie.” The prosecutor’s argument that the victim was honest was no more than a direct counter to the defense’s argument that the victim was dishonest. Taken in context, no improper bolstering occurred. See Yok v. State, 891 So.2d 602, 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (“[The defendant] asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial after the prosecutor stated during closing argument that the victim was ‘honest and straightforward’ while testifying. When reviewed in context, we do not find that the comment constitutes improper bolstering on the part of the prosecutor.”). Moreover, the trial court reminded the jury — before both the opening and closing arguments — that what the lawyers say is argument, not evidence.
We find that the other error raised was not properly preserved.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families v. H.D., 985 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 2008)
- Spann v. State, 985 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 2008)
- YOK v. State, 891 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)