PHILIP VARSAM
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Multiple inappropriate prosecutorial statements during closing argument do not constitute fundamental error warranting reversal when they do not materially affect the verdict.
[1] Multiple inappropriate prosecutorial statements made during closing argument, even when singularly and collectively improper, do not constitute fundamental error requirin…
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 'comments, both singularly and collectively, did not rise to the level of fundamental error'”
Court's reasoning regarding improper prosecutorial statements during closing argument
Philip Varsam was convicted of leaving the scene of a crash involving death and driving under the influence manslaughter. The State made multiple inap…
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 Redirect Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Philip Varsam appeals his convictions for leaving the scene of a crash involving death and driving under the influence manslaughter (impairment). We affirm on all issues.
According to Varsam, the State engaged in multiple incidents of prosecutorial misconduct at trial: 1) by misrepresenting evidence to the jury during closing argument when it mentioned the victim’s hair embedded in Varsam’s vehicle’s windshield; 2) by referencing other notorious cases; 3) in its redirect examination of a nightclub waitress; 4) during Varsam’s cross-examination and closing argument; and 5) multiple unobjected-to comments during closing argument that allegedly denigrated the defense.
We agree that the State made multiple inappropriate statements during closing argument. At the same time, we do not find the statements rise to the level of fundamental error. See Robinson v. State, 211 So. 3d 59, 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (agreeing the state made several inappropriate
2
comments during closing but concluding the “comments, both singularly and collectively, did not rise to the level of fundamental error”). Thus, we affirm but write only to warn the State—and specifically the prosecuting attorney—that certain statements made during closing argument were improper.
Affirmed. MAY, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.