BILLY BAKER
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.
Prosecutor's comments that the defense's theory of the case is not supported by actual evidence constitute permissible fair comment in response to defense arguments and do not constitute improper burden-shifting.
[1] A prosecutor's comments during closing argument that a defendant's theory of the case is not supported by actual evidence constitute permissible fair comment when made in…
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“While the State cannot comment on the defendant's failure to present evidence, there is no impropriety in observing, in response to arguments made by the defense, that the defense's theory of the case is not supported by actual evidence.”
Statement of governing law from Andres v. State, 254 So. 3d 283, 300 (Fla. 2018)
Billy Baker appealed a conviction in Monroe County Circuit Court. The appeal concerns whether prosecutorial comments during closing argument regarding…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Andres v. State, 254 So. 3d 283, 300 (Fla. 2018) (“While the State cannot comment on the defendant’s failure to present evidence, there is no impropriety in observing, in response to arguments made by the defense, that the defense’s theory of the case is not supported by actual evidence.”); Noriega v. State, 228 So. 3d 170, 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“Where the defendant presents and argues for its theory of the case, the state is permitted to respond (if true) that the defendant’s theory is not supported by the evidence at trial.”); Lubin v. State, 963 So. 2d 822, 823–24 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (finding that comment that there was not “one bit of evidence” creating alternative explanation for defendant’s fingerprint at crime scene was “fair comment on uncontroverted evidence” and not improper burden-shifting); see also Rivera v. State, 840 So. 2d 284, 287 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“In order to determine whether improper remarks constitute reversible error, they should be reviewed within the context of the closing argument as a whole and considered cumulatively within the context of the entire record.”) (citation and quotation omitted).
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rivera v. State, 840 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Renelle Lubin v. State, 963 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Andres v. State, 254 So. 3d 283 (Fla. 2018)
- Emiliano E. Noriega v. State, 228 So. 3d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)