JONATHAN NUNEZ GONZALEZ
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.
A prosecutor may robustly argue the truthfulness of a witness whose credibility is under attack, provided the prosecutor does not place the government's prestige behind the witness or indicate that extra-record information supports the testimony.
[1] A prosecutor's comment during closing arguments is permissible when it is a fair reply to the defense's theory that police officers fabricated the incident.
[2] A prosecutor may summarize evidence and argue that the defense's theory of police fabrication is unreasonable, based on the evidence and fair inferences.
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“A prosecutor is permitted to 'robustly and vigorously argue the truthfulness of a witness whose credibility is under attack,' so long as she does not 'place[] the prestige of the government behind the witness or indicate[] that information not presented to the jury supports the witness's testimony.'”
Court explaining the standard for permissible prosecutor argument regarding witness credibility
Gonzalez was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a school, possession of cannabis, and unlawful use of a commun…
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
Opinion filed November 12, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D20-352 Lower Tribunal No. 17-20771
________________
Jonathan Nunez Gonzalez,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Spencer Multack, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Brian H. Zack, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before EMAS, C.J., and MILLER and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Jonathan Nunez Gonzalez appeals from his judgment and sentence for possession of cocaine with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a school, possession of cannabis, and unlawful use of a communication device.
On appeal, Gonzalez asserts a new trial is warranted because of improper comments made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. As to the first comment, and the context in which it was made, we conclude that it was not improper but rather a fair reply to Gonzalez’s defense theory as articulated by his attorney—that the police officers fabricated the entire incident, that Gonzalez committed no criminal act, and that this was nothing more than a “story, a tall tale.”
The prosecutor’s comment neither improperly bolstered, nor vouched for, the officers who testified at trial. Instead, the prosecutor summarized the evidence introduced and argued to the jury, based on that evidence and fair inferences, that the defense’s theory of police fabrication was unreasonable. See Williamson v.
State, 994 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 2008). A prosecutor is permitted to “robustly and vigorously argue the truthfulness of a witness whose credibility is under attack,”
Jackson v. State, 89 So. 3d 1011, 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), so long as she does not
“place[] the prestige of the government behind the witness or indicate[] that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.” Williamson,
994 So. 2d at 1013. See also Glispy v. State, 940 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
As to the remaining claims of improper argument, we find no merit. In context, the arguments were proper and, to the extent they could be considered improper, we conclude that any such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Williamson v. State, 994 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 2008)
- Jackson v. State, 89 So. 3d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Glispy v. State, 940 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)