ANGELO VELEZ
v.
THE 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.
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that the prosecutor's closing argument comments constituted a permissible invited response to defense counsel's arguments about witness availability.
A prosecutor's closing argument comments are not improper when they constitute an invited response to defense counsel's comments.
[1] A prosecutor's closing argument response to defense counsel's emphasis on witness availability is not improper when it fairly addresses the inference that the violent nat…
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“a prosecutor's comments in closing are not improper where they fall into the category of an "invited response" to defense counsel's comments”
Walls v. State standard for evaluating prosecutor closing argument comments
Angelo Velez was convicted in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. The defense emphasized during trial and closing argument that despite many people being…
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 Appeal Of Criminal Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Walls v. State, 926 So. 2d 1156, 1166 (Fla. 2006) (a prosecutor’s comments in closing are not improper where they fall into the category of an “invited response” to defense counsel’s comments); Page v. State, 335 So. 3d 810 (Fla 3d DCA 2022); McKenney v. State, 967 So. 2d 951, 954-55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (defense counsel emphasized during trial that, although as many as fifty people were at the location of the shooting, the State presented the testimony of only one eyewitness; in closing argument, defense continued to emphasize this issue, and concluded by asking the jury “why haven’t other eyewitnesses come forward?”; in rebuttal, the prosecutor stated that “anyone with one ounce of common sense, can figure out that when a person is capable of gunning down an unarmed man in front of a bunch of people, not just with a little handgun, mind you, but with an assault rifle, who the heck is going to get involved in that kind of mess?”; this court affirmed, holding that “the prosecutor responded fairly to the defense's question by discussing the inference, a matter of common sense, that the horrific crime scene and 30-plus rounds of assault rifle fire would not encourage a bystander to step forward.”)
2