RAYMOND WAYNE BREEDEN, 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.
Appellant's convictions for first-degree murder and armed burglary affirmed because prosecutor's improper comments, though not objected to at trial, did not rise to the level of fundamental error.
Unobjected-to prosecutorial comments during voir dire, cross-examination, and closing argument do not constitute reversible error unless they rise to the level of fundamental error affecting the validity of the trial itself.
[1] Failure to contemporaneously object to improper prosecutorial comments waives appellate review unless the comments constitute fundamental error affecting the trial's vali…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRaymond Wayne Breeden was convicted of first-degree murder and armed burglary. The prosecutor made numerous improper comments during voir dire, cross-…
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 Appellate Review Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Raymond Wayne Bree-den appeals his convictions and sentences for first-degree murder and armed burglary. Breeden has identified numerous improper comments the prosecutor made in voir dire, in cross-examining him, and in closing argument. However, Breeden objected to none of these improper comments.*
“As a general rule, ... failing to raise a contemporaneous objection when improper closing argument comments are made waives any claim concerning such comments for appellate' review.” Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879, 898 (Fla. 2000). “The sole exception to the general’rule is where *337the unobjected-to comments rise to the level of fundamental error, which has been defined as error that ‘reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have-been obtained without the assistance, of the alleged error.’ ” Id. at 898-99 (quoting McDonald v. State, 743 So.2d 501, 505 (Fla. 1999)). While many of the prosecutor’s comments identified by Breeden were improper, after a careful review of the record, we find none of them meet the fundamental-error standard, either individually or cumulatively.
Affirmed.
OSTERHAUS and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jihad Abdul Smith v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…, ballistics evidence, cell site location evidence that he can’t run from and he can’t hide from ‘cause it’s right there in black and white. Appellant did not object to the comment, and so we review it for fundamental error. See Breeden v. State, 226 So. 3d 336, 336–37 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). Appellant relies on Nurse v. State, 932 So. 2d 290, 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), where the prosecutor stated that the defendant no longer had the presumption of innocence. But the Second District in Nurse did not hold that t…
-
Smith v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…ild a record and that he refused a curative instruction to prevent further attention to the comments. Since Smith preserved none of his arguments about improper comments, we review the contested comments for fundamental error. See Breeden v. State, 226 So. 3d 336, 337 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). A fundamental error is one that “reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.” Id. “The purpose of clos…
Authorities Cited
- Brooks v. State, 762 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2000)
- McDONALD v. State, 743 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1999)