RODRIGUEZ
v.
STATE
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 trial court did not commit reversible error in overruling the defendant's objections to the State's rebuttal closing argument statements, as they were either proper fair reply to defense argument or constituted harmless error.
[1] When a trial court overrules contemporaneous defense objections to comments made during closing argument and the appellate court determines the comments were improper, ha…
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 intelligence“the burden on the state, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction”
Statement of the harmless error standard applied when a trial court erroneously overrules objections to improper closing argument comments
James Rodriguez was convicted by jury of trafficking in cocaine. At trial, Rodriguez objected to certain statements made by the State during its rebut…
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 Fair Reply Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed April 24, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D18-1830 Lower Tribunal No. 16-16648
________________
James Rodriguez,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Victoria del Pino, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jonathan Greenberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kayla H. McNab, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before EMAS, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LINDSEY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
James Rodriguez appeals from a judgment and sentence following a jury trial in which he was found guilty of trafficking in cocaine. On appeal, Rodriguez asserts that the trial court committed reversible error in overruling his objections to certain statements made by the State in its rebuttal closing argument. A trial court’s rulings on comments made during closing argument are generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Braddy v. State, 111 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 2012). However,
if the trial court overruled the defense's contemporaneous objections, and we determine that the comments were indeed improper, we apply a harmless error standard of review. Snelgrove v. State, 921 So. 2d 560, 568 (Fla. 2005). This standard places “the burden on the state, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.” Ibar v. State, 938 So. 2d 451, 466 (Fla. 2006) (quoting State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 1986)).
Upon our review of the record, including a review of the closing arguments made by the State and the defense, we conclude that most of the complained-of comments were not improper and were in fair reply to defense counsel’s closing argument. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 225 So. 3d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). To the extent that any of the State’s comments were improper and objections were erroneously overruled by the trial court, we conclude any such error was harmless.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)
-
King v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Harrel Franklin Braddy v. State, 111 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 2012)
- Ibar v. State, 938 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2006)
- Snelgrove v. State, 921 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 2005)
- Williams v. State, 225 So. 3d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)